Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) 2020
DOI: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.506
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factual Error Correction for Abstractive Summarization Models

Abstract: Neural abstractive summarization systems have achieved promising progress, thanks to the availability of large-scale datasets and models pre-trained with self-supervised methods. However, ensuring the factual consistency of the generated summaries for abstractive summarization systems is a challenge. We propose a post-editing corrector module to address this issue by identifying and correcting factual errors in generated summaries. The neural corrector model is pre-trained on artificial examples that are creat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
81
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 88 publications
(98 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(26 reference statements)
0
81
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, while synthetic data generation approaches are specifically designed for factuality evaluation, do these align with actual errors made by generation models? We find the answer is no: techniques using surface-level data corruption (Kryscinski et al, 2020;Zhao et al, 2020;Cao et al, 2020) or paraphrasing (Goyal and Durrett, 2020a) target inherently different error distributions than those seen in actual model generations, and factuality models trained on these datasets perform poorly in practice. Furthermore, we show that different summarization domains, CNN/Daily Mail (Hermann et al, 2015;Nallapati et al, 2016) and XSum (Narayan et al, 2018) (which differ in the style of summaries and degree of abstraction), exhibit substantially different error distributions in generated summaries, and the same dataset creation approach cannot be used across the board.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…First, while synthetic data generation approaches are specifically designed for factuality evaluation, do these align with actual errors made by generation models? We find the answer is no: techniques using surface-level data corruption (Kryscinski et al, 2020;Zhao et al, 2020;Cao et al, 2020) or paraphrasing (Goyal and Durrett, 2020a) target inherently different error distributions than those seen in actual model generations, and factuality models trained on these datasets perform poorly in practice. Furthermore, we show that different summarization domains, CNN/Daily Mail (Hermann et al, 2015;Nallapati et al, 2016) and XSum (Narayan et al, 2018) (which differ in the style of summaries and degree of abstraction), exhibit substantially different error distributions in generated summaries, and the same dataset creation approach cannot be used across the board.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…A recent thread of work has focused on leveraging synthetic data transformations for evaluating factuality (Kryscinski et al, 2020), imposing decoding-time constraints (Zhao et al, 2020), or post-correction of summaries (Cao et al, 2020). Each of these approaches assumes that corruption strategies will yield useful non-factual summaries, while gold summaries are treated as factual.…”
Section: Entity-centric Synthetic Data (Ent-c)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To correct factual errors, uses pre-trained NLU models to rectify one or more wrong entities in the summary. Concurrent to our work, Cao et al (2020) employs the generation model BART to produce corrected summaries.…”
Section: Fact-aware Summarizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Modern text generation models are known to hallucinate facts (Huang et al, 2020), which has led the community to create models to detect and correct hallucinations (Cao et al, 2020;.…”
Section: Inaccuracy Guardrailmentioning
confidence: 99%