CoP: Factual Inconsistency Detection by Controlling the Preference
Shuaijie She, Xiang Geng, Shujian Huang, Jiajun Chen
Abstract
Abstractive summarization is the process of generating a summary given a document as input. Although significant progress has been made, the factual inconsistency between the document and the generated summary still limits its practical applications. Previous work found that the probabilities assigned by the generation model reflect its preferences for the generated summary, including the preference for factual consistency, and the preference for the language or knowledge prior as well. To separate the preference for factual consistency, we propose an unsupervised framework named CoP by controlling the preference of the generation model with the help of prompt. More specifically, the framework performs an extra inference step in which a text prompt is introduced as an additional input. In this way, another preference is described by the generation probability of this extra inference process. The difference between the above two preferences, i.e. the difference between the probabilities, could be used as measurements for detecting factual inconsistencies. Interestingly, we found that with the properly designed prompt, our framework could evaluate specific preferences and serve as measurements for fine-grained categories of inconsistency, such as entity-related inconsistency, coreference-related inconsistency, etc. Moreover, our framework could also be extended to the supervised setting to learn better prompt from the labeled data as well. Experiments show that our framework achieves new SOTA results on three factual inconsistency detection tasks.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0ae36211-eb06-44c6-bf91-aa9c4f9d8b94Cited by top-tier papers2
- UAlign: Leveraging Uncertainty Estimations for Factuality Alignment on Large Language ModelsBoyang Xue, Fei Mi, Qi Zhu, Hongru Wang et al.ACL 2025 · 10 citations
- Zero-shot Faithfulness Evaluation for Text Summarization with Foundation Language ModelQi Jia, Siyu Ren, Yizhu Liu, Kenny Q. ZhuEMNLP 2023 · 4 citations
Builds on8
- BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTTianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger et al.ICLR 2020 · 8,443 citations
- PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive SummarizationJingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, Peter J. LiuICML 2020 · 2,453 citations
- BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and ComprehensionMike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad et al.ACL 2020 · 1,224 citations
- BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text GenerationWeizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, Pengfei LiuNeurIPS 2021 · 1,143 citations
- ELECTRA: Pre-training Text Encoders as Discriminators Rather Than GeneratorsKevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, Christopher D. ManningICLR 2020 · 541 citations
Related papers
- Fine-grained Factual Consistency Assessment for Abstractive Summarization ModelsSen Zhang, Jianwei Niu, Chuyuan WeiEMNLP 2021 · 8 citations
- Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization via Question AnsweringFeng Nan, Cícero Nogueira dos Santos, Henghui Zhu, Patrick Ng et al.ACL 2021
- Multi-Fact Correction in Abstractive Text SummarizationYue Dong, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng et al.EMNLP 2020 · 99 citations
- Factually Consistent Summarization via Reinforcement Learning with Textual Entailment FeedbackPaul Roit, Johan Ferret, Lior Shani, Roee Aharoni et al.ACL 2023 · 21 citations
- FIZZ: Factual Inconsistency Detection by Zoom-in Summary and Zoom-out DocumentJoonho Yang, Seunghyun Yoon, Byeongjeong Kim, Hwanhee LeeEMNLP 2024 · 3 citations
