# SummExecEdit: A Factual Consistency Benchmark in Summarization with Executable Edits

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.13378 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13378/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 12 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Dec 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12626/) (2020)
- [SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09525/) (2021)
- [AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with a Unified Alignment Function](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16739/) (2023)
- [MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10774/) (2024)
- [QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.08542/) (2021)
- [Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12854/) (2022)
- [ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15621/) (2023)
- [TofuEval: Evaluating Hallucinations of LLMs on Topic-Focused Dialogue Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13249/) (2024)
- [FABLES: Evaluating faithfulness and content selection in book-length summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01261/) (2024)
- [Beyond the Chat: Executable and Verifiable Text-Editing with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15337/) (2023)
- [LLMs for Generating and Evaluating Counterfactuals: A Comprehensive Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00722/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05243/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Detecting factual inconsistencies in summarization is critical, yet existing benchmarks lack the necessary challenge and interpretability for robust evaluation. In this paper, we introduce SummExecEdit, a novel pipeline and benchmark leveraging executable edits to assess models on their ability to both detect factual errors and provide accurate explanations. The top-performing model, Claude3-Opus, achieves a joint detection and explanation score of only 0.49 in our benchmark, with individual scores of 0.67 for detection and 0.73 for explanation. We conduct detailed evaluations to assess the current state of models in this field and find that more than half of the 20+ LLMs in our study struggle with over 30% of the SummExecEdit benchmark. Additionally, we identify four primary types of explanation errors, with 45.4% of them involving a focus on completely unrelated parts of the summary.