Cited by 79Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques

Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization via Question Answering

Open access
Nan, Feng, Nogueira dos Santos, Cicero, Zhu, Henghui, Ng, Patrick, McKeown, Kathleen, Nallapati, Ramesh, Zhang, Dejiao, Wang, Zhiguo +2 more·2021·Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Feng Nan, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Henghui Zhu, Patrick Ng, Kathleen McKeown, Ramesh Nallapati, Dejiao Zhang, Zhiguo Wang, Andrew O. Arnold, Bing Xiang. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.536

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nan et al. propose an entity-based metric relying on the Named-Entity Recognition model, which is relatively more robust.

    “Therefore, Nan et al. [190] propose an entity-based metric relying on the Named-Entity Recognition model, which is relatively more robust.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Nan et al. [190]

    Section 5 (Related work; page not available) says Nan et al. proposed entity-level factual-consistency metrics. It does not say those metrics rely on a Named-Entity Recognition model or are relatively more robust, so those parts of the claim are unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nan, F., Nogueira dos Santos, C., Zhu, H., Ng, P., McKeown, K., Nallapati, R., Zhang, D., Wang, Z., Arnold, A. O., & Xiang, B.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2021
Pages
6881-6894
OpenAlex
W3177242492
Cited by
78
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 1
FWCI
6.82
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
Keywords
abstractive summarization, factual consistency, question answering, factual accuracy, summarization evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review