Do Automatic Factuality Metrics Measure Factuality? A Critical Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.16638v2
• Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:38:04 GMT
• Title: Do Automatic Factuality Metrics Measure Factuality? A Critical Evaluation
• Authors: Sanjana Ramprasad, Byron C. Wallace,
• Abstract summary: This work investigates whether and to what degree superficial attributes of summary texts suffice to predict factuality'' We then evaluate how factuality metrics respond to factual corrections in inconsistent summaries and find that only a few show meaningful improvements. Motivated by these insights, we show that one can game'' (most) automatic factuality metrics, i.e., reliably inflate factuality'' scores by appending innocuous sentences to generated summaries.
• Score: 21.650619533772232
• License:
• Abstract: Modern LLMs can now produce highly readable abstractive summaries, to the point where traditional automated metrics for evaluating summary quality, such as ROUGE, have become saturated. However, LLMs still sometimes introduce unwanted content into summaries, i.e., information inconsistent with or unsupported by their source. Measuring the occurrence of these often subtle ``hallucinations'' automatically has proved to be challenging. This in turn has motivated development of a variety of metrics intended to measure the factual consistency of generated summaries against their source. But are these approaches measuring what they purport to do? In this work, we stress-test automatic factuality metrics. Specifically, we investigate whether and to what degree superficial attributes of summary texts suffice to predict ``factuality'', finding that a (supervised) model using only such shallow features is reasonably competitive with SOTA factuality scoring methods. We then evaluate how factuality metrics respond to factual corrections in inconsistent summaries and find that only a few show meaningful improvements. In contrast, some metrics are more sensitive to benign, non-factual edits. Motivated by these insights, we show that one can ``game'' (most) automatic factuality metrics, i.e., reliably inflate ``factuality'' scores by appending innocuous sentences to generated summaries.Taken together, our results raise questions about the degree to which we should rely on existing automated factuality metrics and what exactly we want ``factuality metrics'' to measure.

Related papers

• FENICE: Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction [85.26780391682894]
  We propose Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction (FENICE) FENICE leverages an NLI-based alignment between information in the source document and a set of atomic facts, referred to as claims, extracted from the summary. Our metric sets a new state of the art on AGGREFACT, the de-facto benchmark for factuality evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T17:57:18Z)
• Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics [58.438648377314436]
  A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T12:36:23Z)
• Goodhart's Law Applies to NLP's Explanation Benchmarks [57.26445915212884]
  We critically examine two sets of metrics: the ERASER metrics (comprehensiveness and sufficiency) and the EVAL-X metrics. We show that we can inflate a model's comprehensiveness and sufficiency scores dramatically without altering its predictions or explanations on in-distribution test inputs. Our results raise doubts about the ability of current metrics to guide explainability research, underscoring the need for a broader reassessment of what precisely these metrics are intended to capture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T03:03:03Z)
• Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Large Language Models Through News Summarization [97.04685401448499]
  We propose a new benchmark called FIB(Factual Inconsistency Benchmark) that focuses on the task of summarization. For factually consistent summaries, we use human-written reference summaries that we manually verify as factually consistent. For factually inconsistent summaries, we generate summaries from a suite of summarization models that we have manually annotated as factually inconsistent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T18:50:34Z)
• TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
  We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)
• On Quantitative Evaluations of Counterfactuals [88.42660013773647]
  This paper consolidates work on evaluating visual counterfactual examples through an analysis and experiments. We find that while most metrics behave as intended for sufficiently simple datasets, some fail to tell the difference between good and bad counterfactuals when the complexity increases. We propose two new metrics, the Label Variation Score and the Oracle score, which are both less vulnerable to such tiny changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-30T05:00:36Z)
• Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization via Question Answering [25.725873545789046]
  We present an approach to address factual consistency in summarization. We first propose an efficient automatic evaluation metric to measure factual consistency. We then propose a novel learning algorithm that maximizes the proposed metric during model training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-10T19:07:21Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)

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.