Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Confer 2021
DOI: 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.536
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization via Question Answering

Abstract: A commonly observed problem with the stateof-the art abstractive summarization models is that the generated summaries can be factually inconsistent with the input documents. The fact that automatic summarization may produce plausible-sounding yet inaccurate summaries is a major concern that limits its wide application. In this paper we present an approach to address factual consistency in summarization. We first propose an efficient automatic evaluation metric to measure factual consistency; next, we propose a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
57
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
57
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides, the input text of text summarization sometimes refers to the news including world facts. To make summarization models produce more factual summaries, some works proposed some evaluation metrics or correction methods to measure and revise the generated text for preserving factuality [35,133].…”
Section: Optimization Viewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, the input text of text summarization sometimes refers to the news including world facts. To make summarization models produce more factual summaries, some works proposed some evaluation metrics or correction methods to measure and revise the generated text for preserving factuality [35,133].…”
Section: Optimization Viewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The additional procedure generated question-answer pairs from the source document and answered the questions from the generated text. In contrast to QuestEval, QUALS Nan et al (2021a) simplified the above procedure 1-3 by only one neural language model (QAGen). QUALS employs QAGen as proposed in (Shakeri et al, 2020), to generate both the questions and answers from the generated text.…”
Section: Answer Alignment Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Much work in this area concerns improving factuality and factual consistency (Shuster et al, 2021;Nan et al, 2021;Mao et al, 2020;Aralikatte et al, 2021). While this is one aspect of our work, we also aim to improve automatic evaluation, for which a single standard metric has not emerged.…”
Section: Factuality and Factual Consistencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While this is one aspect of our work, we also aim to improve automatic evaluation, for which a single standard metric has not emerged. Some works evaluate factuality and consistency with extraction (Goodrich et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2020) or question answering (Wang et al, 2020;Durmus et al, 2020;Nan et al, 2021). Others use notions of entailment (Falke et al, 2019), or simply train end-to-end models to judge these aspects directly (Kryscinski et al, 2020).…”
Section: Factuality and Factual Consistencymentioning
confidence: 99%