ACL Findings2022
Probing Factually Grounded Content Transfer with Factual Ablation
Peter West, Chris Quirk, Michel Galley, Yejin Choi
Abstract
Despite recent success, large neural models often generate factually incorrect text. Compounding this is the lack of a standard automatic evaluation for factuality-it cannot be meaningfully improved if it cannot be measured. Grounded generation promises a path to solving both of these problems: models draw on a reliable external document (grounding) for factual information, simplifying the challenge of factuality. Measuring factuality is also simplified-to factual consistency, testing whether the generation agrees with the grounding, rather than all facts. Yet, without a standard automatic metric for factual consistency, factually grounded generation remains an open problem.
We study this problem for content transfer, in which generations extend a prompt, using information from factual grounding. Particularly, this domain allows us to introduce the notion of factual ablation for automatically measuring factual consistency: this captures the intuition that the model should be less likely to produce an output given a less relevant grounding document. In practice, we measure this by presenting a model with two grounding documents, and the model should prefer to use the more factually relevant one. We contribute two evaluation sets to measure this. Applying our new evaluation, we propose multiple novel methods improving over strong baselines.
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 2 top-tier papers that cite it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers2
- Factuality Enhanced Language Models for Open-Ended Text GenerationNayeon Lee, Wei Ping, Peng Xu, Mostofa Patwary et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 318 citations
- Can LMs Learn New Entities from Descriptions? Challenges in Propagating Injected KnowledgeYasumasa Onoe, Michael J. Q. Zhang, Shankar Padmanabhan, Greg Durrett et al.ACL 2023 · 24 citations
Builds on16
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in ConversationKurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela et al.EMNLP Findings 2021 · 579 citations
- Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of SummariesAlex Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, Mike LewisACL 2020 · 317 citations
- Optimizing the Factual Correctness of a Summary: A Study of Summarizing Radiology ReportsYuhao Zhang, Derek Merck, Emily Bao Tsai, Christopher D. Manning et al.ACL 2020 · 160 citations
Related papers
- : Evaluating Factual Consistency in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogues via Question Generation and Question AnsweringOr Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Roee Aharoni, Ella Neeman et al.EMNLP 2021 · 101 citations
- Grounded Keys-to-Text Generation: Towards Factual Open-Ended GenerationFaeze Brahman, Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Sudha Rao et al.EMNLP Findings 2022
- Do Automatic Factuality Metrics Measure Factuality? A Critical EvaluationSanjana Ramprasad, Byron C. WallaceNeurIPS 2025 · 13 citations
- CoP: Factual Inconsistency Detection by Controlling the PreferenceShuaijie She, Xiang Geng, Shujian Huang, Jiajun ChenAAAI 2023 · 6 citations
- GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in SummarizationSaadia Gabriel, Asli Celikyilmaz, Rahul Jha, Yejin Choi et al.ACL Findings 2021 · 75 citations
