Analyzing and Evaluating Faithfulness in Dialogue Summarization
Bin Wang, Chen Zhang, Yan Zhang, Yiming Chen, Haizhou Li
Abstract
Dialogue summarization is abstractive in nature, making it suffer from factual errors. The factual correctness of summaries has the highest priority before practical applications. Many efforts have been made to improve faithfulness in text summarization. However, there is a lack of systematic study on dialogue summarization systems. In this work, we first perform the fine-grained human analysis on the faithfulness of dialogue summaries and observe that over 35% of generated summaries are faithfully inconsistent respective the source dialogues. Furthermore, we present a new model-level faithfulness evaluation method. It examines generation models with multi-choice questions created by rule-based transformations. Experimental results show that our evaluation schema is a strong proxy for the factual correctness of summarization models. The humanannotated faithfulness samples and the evaluation toolkit are released to facilitate future research toward faithful dialogue summarization. Code available: https://github. com/BinWang28/FacEval .
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 c5983bff-d216-476d-a8a6-d5eff343fcb7Cited by top-tier papers6
- Do Automatic Factuality Metrics Measure Factuality? A Critical EvaluationSanjana Ramprasad, Byron C. WallaceNeurIPS 2025 · 13 citations
- Instructive Dialogue Summarization with Query AggregationsBin Wang, Zhengyuan Liu, Nancy F. ChenEMNLP 2023 · 5 citations
- Reference Matters: Benchmarking Factual Error Correction for Dialogue Summarization with Fine-grained Evaluation FrameworkMingqi Gao, Xiaojun Wan, Jia Su, Zhefeng Wang et al.ACL 2023 · 4 citations
- Temporal Referential Consistency: Do LLMs Favor Sequences Over Absolute Time References?Ashutosh Bajpai, Tanmoy ChakrabortyEMNLP 2025
- An Empirical Study of Many-to-Many Summarization with Large Language ModelsJiaan Wang, Fandong Meng, Zengkui Sun, Yunlong Liang et al.ACL 2025
Builds on15
- 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
- Extractive Summarization as Text MatchingMing Zhong, Pengfei Liu, Yiran Chen, Danqing Wang et al.ACL 2020 · 410 citations
- BRIO: Bringing Order to Abstractive SummarizationYixin Liu, Pengfei Liu, Dragomir R. Radev, Graham NeubigACL 2022 · 329 citations
Related papers
- STORYSUMM: Evaluating Faithfulness in Story SummarizationMelanie Subbiah, Faisal Ladhak, Akankshya Mishra, Griffin Adams et al.EMNLP 2024 · 2 citations
- FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive SummarizationEsin Durmus, He He, Mona T. DiabACL 2020 · 90 citations
- X-FACTOR: A Cross-metric Evaluation of Factual Correctness in Abstractive SummarizationSubhajit Chaudhury, Sarathkrishna Swaminathan, R. Chulaka Gunasekara, Maxwell Crouse et al.EMNLP 2022 · 13 citations
- Faithful or Extractive? On Mitigating the Faithfulness-Abstractiveness Trade-off in Abstractive SummarizationFaisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus, He He, Claire Cardie et al.ACL 2022 · 74 citations
- : 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
