Evaluating Factual Consistency of Summaries with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14069v2
• Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:20:42 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Factual Consistency of Summaries with Large Language Models
• Authors: Shiqi Chen, Siyang Gao and Junxian He
• Abstract summary: We explore evaluating factual consistency of summaries by directly prompting large language models (LLMs) Our experiments demonstrate that prompting LLMs is able to outperform the previous best factuality systems in all settings.
• Score: 24.416837319515896
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Detecting factual errors in summaries has been an important and challenging subject in summarization research. Inspired by the emergent ability of large language models (LLMs), we explore evaluating factual consistency of summaries by directly prompting LLMs. We present a comprehensive empirical study to assess the ability of LLMs as factual consistency evaluators, which consists of (1) analyzing different LLMs such as the GPT model series and Flan-T5; (2) investigating a variety of prompting methods including vanilla prompting, chain-of-thought prompting, and a sentence-by-sentence prompting method to tackle long summaries; and (3) evaluating on diverse summaries generated by multiple summarization systems, ranging from pre-transformer methods to SOTA pretrained models. Our experiments demonstrate that prompting LLMs is able to outperform the previous best factuality systems in all settings, by up to 12.2 absolute points in terms of the binary classification accuracy on inconsistency detection.

Related papers

• Beyond Binary: Towards Fine-Grained LLM-Generated Text Detection via Role Recognition and Involvement Measurement [51.601916604301685]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate content that can undermine trust in online discourse. Current methods often focus on binary classification, failing to address the complexities of real-world scenarios like human-AI collaboration. To move beyond binary classification and address these challenges, we propose a new paradigm for detecting LLM-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T08:14:10Z)
• Learning to Refine with Fine-Grained Natural Language Feedback [81.70313509881315]
  We propose looking at refinement with feedback as a composition of three distinct LLM competencies. A key property of the proposed Detect, Critique, Refine ("DCR") method is that the step 2 critique model can give fine-grained feedback about errors. We show that models of different capabilities benefit from refining with DCR on the task of improving factual consistency of document grounded summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:15:01Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Factual Dialogue Summarization via Learning from Large Language Models [35.63037083806503]
  Large language model (LLM)-based automatic text summarization models generate more factually consistent summaries. We employ zero-shot learning to extract symbolic knowledge from LLMs, generating factually consistent (positive) and inconsistent (negative) summaries. Our approach achieves better factual consistency while maintaining coherence, fluency, and relevance, as confirmed by various automatic evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T20:03:37Z)
• SIFiD: Reassess Summary Factual Inconsistency Detection with LLM [27.392514180175283]
  This study reassesses summary inconsistency detection with Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose SIFiD (Summary Inconsistency Detection with Filtered Document) that identify key sentences within documents by either employing natural language inference or measuring semantic similarity between summaries and documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T11:41:51Z)
• TofuEval: Evaluating Hallucinations of LLMs on Topic-Focused Dialogue Summarization [29.49641083851667]
  We propose a new evaluation benchmark on topic-focused dialogue summarization, generated by LLMs of varying sizes. We provide binary sentence-level human annotations of the factual consistency of these summaries along with detailed explanations of factually inconsistent sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:58:49Z)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• Summarization is (Almost) Dead [49.360752383801305]
  We develop new datasets and conduct human evaluation experiments to evaluate the zero-shot generation capability of large language models (LLMs) Our findings indicate a clear preference among human evaluators for LLM-generated summaries over human-written summaries and summaries generated by fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T08:13:01Z)
• Semantic Consistency for Assuring Reliability of Large Language Models [9.876355290198639]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks. We introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs. We propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-17T18:11:33Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.