Optimising Factual Consistency in Summarisation via Preference Learning from Multiple Imperfect Metrics
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26840v1
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 10:55:03 GMT
- Title: Optimising Factual Consistency in Summarisation via Preference Learning from Multiple Imperfect Metrics
- Abstract summary: We introduce an automated training pipeline that improves factual consistency in summaries by aggregating scores from different weak metrics.<n>Our approach avoids the need for complex reward shaping by mapping scores to preferences and filtering out cases with high disagreement between metrics.<n>Experiments demonstrate consistent factuality gains across models, ranging from early encoder-decoder architectures to modern large language models.
- Score: 0.9867902290081937
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Reinforcement learning with evaluation metrics as rewards is widely used to enhance specific capabilities of language models. However, for tasks such as factually consistent summarisation, existing metrics remain underdeveloped, limiting their effectiveness as signals for shaping model behaviour.While individual factuality metrics are unreliable, their combination can more effectively capture diverse factual errors. We leverage this insight to introduce an automated training pipeline that improves factual consistency in summaries by aggregating scores from different weak metrics. Our approach avoids the need for complex reward shaping by mapping scores to preferences and filtering out cases with high disagreement between metrics. For each source document, we generate lexically similar summary pairs by varying decoding strategies, enabling the model to learn from factual differences caused by subtle lexical differences. This approach constructs a high-quality preference dataset using only source documents.Experiments demonstrate consistent factuality gains across models, ranging from early encoder-decoder architectures to modern large language models, with smaller models reaching comparable factuality to larger ones.
Related papers
- PrefixNLI: Detecting Factual Inconsistencies as Soon as They Arise [60.63315470285562]
MiniTruePrefixes is a novel specialized model that better detects factual inconsistencies over text prefixes.<n>We show that integrating MiniTruePrefixes into a controlled decoding framework substantially improves factual consistency in abstractive summarization.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-03T09:07:44Z) - Every Step Counts: Decoding Trajectories as Authorship Fingerprints of dLLMs [63.82840470917859]
We show that the decoding mechanism of dLLMs can be used as a powerful tool for model attribution.<n>We propose a novel information extraction scheme called the Directed Decoding Map (DDM), which captures structural relationships between decoding steps and better reveals model-specific behaviors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-02T06:25:10Z) - Preserving Knowledge Invariance: Rethinking Robustness Evaluation of Open Information Extraction [49.15931834209624]
We present the first benchmark that simulates the evaluation of open information extraction models in the real world.<n>We design and annotate a large-scale testbed in which each example is a knowledge-invariant clique.<n>By further elaborating the robustness metric, a model is judged to be robust if its performance is consistently accurate on the overall cliques.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T12:05:09Z) - Evaluating Representations with Readout Model Switching [19.907607374144167]
In this paper, we propose to use the Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle to devise an evaluation metric.
We design a hybrid discrete and continuous-valued model space for the readout models and employ a switching strategy to combine their predictions.
The proposed metric can be efficiently computed with an online method and we present results for pre-trained vision encoders of various architectures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-19T14:08:01Z) - Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers,
Datasets, Error Detectors [105.12462629663757]
In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model.
We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-25T15:26:48Z) - An Empirical Investigation of Commonsense Self-Supervision with
Knowledge Graphs [67.23285413610243]
Self-supervision based on the information extracted from large knowledge graphs has been shown to improve the generalization of language models.
We study the effect of knowledge sampling strategies and sizes that can be used to generate synthetic data for adapting language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-21T19:49:04Z) - Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A
Benchmark for Factuality Metrics [17.677637487977208]
Modern summarization models generate highly fluent but often factually unreliable outputs.
Due to the lack of common benchmarks, metrics attempting to measure the factuality of automatically generated summaries cannot be compared.
We devise a typology of factual errors and use it to collect human annotations of generated summaries from state-of-the-art summarization systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-27T17:28:07Z) - Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples.
We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries.
We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)
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.