QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Thomas Scialom, Paul-Alexis Dray, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Piwowarski, Jacopo Staiano, Alex Wang, Patrick Gallinari. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
QA-based reference-free metrics have substantially higher correlations with human judgments of faithfulness than baseline metrics.
“The results show that these reference-free metrics have substantially higher correlations with human judgments of faithfulness than the baseline metrics.”
From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [227]
The results tables (p. 5) show that the reference-free QUESTEVAL has a substantially higher correlation with human judgments of consistency than the reference-based baselines. The claim is too broad for QA-based reference-free metrics generally: in the same results, SummaQA’s consistency correlation is 8.3, below several baselines, and QAGS’s 20.4 is close to the best 11-reference baseline’s 20.3. (LLM, conf=0.87)
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
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 48,293 · see citing works
BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation
Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., & Zhu, W.-J. (2001) · Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '02 · doi:10.3115/1073083.1073135 · Cited by 21,344 · see citing works
Lewis, M., Liu, Y., Goyal, N., Ghazvininejad, M., Mohamed, A., Levy, O., Stoyanov, V., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 · Cited by 8,821 · see citing works
BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT
Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K. Q., & Artzi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09675 · Cited by 2,865 · see citing works
Narayan, S., Cohen, S. B., & Lapata, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1206 · Cited by 1,207 · see citing works
On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization
Maynez, J., Narayan, S., Bohnet, B., & McDonald, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.173 · Cited by 1,185 · see citing works
Meteor: an automatic metric for MT evaluation with high levels of correlation with human judgments
Lavie, A., & Agarwal, A. (2007) · Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation - StatMT '07 · doi:10.3115/1626355.1626389 · Cited by 1,047 · see citing works
NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Dataset
Trischler, A., Wang, T., Yuan, X., Harris, J., Sordoni, A., Bachman, P., & Suleman, K. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-2623 · Cited by 706 · cited 2× · see citing works
“SQuAD-v2 provides unanswerable questions, while NewsQA is composed of news articles, corresponding to our summarization domain.”
MethodEvaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization
Kryscinski, W., McCann, B., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.750 · Cited by 669 · see citing works
Object Hallucination in Image Captioning
Rohrbach, A., Hendricks, L. A., Burns, K., Darrell, T., & Saenko, K. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1437 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Durmus, E., He, H., & Diab, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.454 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Reducing Quantity Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarization
Zhao, Z., Cohen, S. B., & Webber, B. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.203 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Manik Bhandari, Pranav Gour, Atabak Ashfaq, and Pengfei Liu. 2020. Metrics also disagree in the low scoring range: Revisiting summarization evaluation metrics. In Proceedings of COLING 2020, the 30th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers . The COLING 2020 Organizing Committee.
- Ping Chen, Fei Wu, Tong Wang, and Wei Ding. 2017. A semantic qa-based approach for text summarization evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.06259 . · arXiv
- James Clarke and Mirella Lapata. 2010. Discourse constraints for document compression. Computational Linguistics , 36(3):411-441.
- Matan Eyal, Tal Baumel, and Michael Elhadad. 2019. Question answering as an automatic evaluation metric for news article summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00318 . · arXiv
- Alexander R Fabbri, Wojciech Kry´ sci´ nski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2020. Summeval: Reevaluating summarization evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.12626 . · arXiv
- Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09751 . · arXiv
- Wojciech Kryscinski, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Neural text summarization: A critical evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) , pages 540551, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Hwanhee Lee, Thomas Scialom, Seunghyun Yoon, Franck Dernoncourt, and Kyomin Jung. 2021. Qace: Asking questions to evaluate an image caption. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings . Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Wei Li, Xinyan Xiao, Yajuan Lyu, and Yuanzhuo Wang. 2018. Improving neural abstractive document summarization with explicit information selection modeling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1787-1796, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out , pages 74-81.
- Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova. 2013. Automatically assessing machine summary content without a gold standard. Computational Linguistics , 39(2):267300.
- Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Caglar Gulcehre, Bing Xiang, et al. 2016. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence rnns and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06023 . · arXiv
- Jekaterina Novikova, Ondˇ rej Dušek, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why we need new evaluation metrics for nlg. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06875 . · arXiv
- Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304 . · arXiv
- Maxime Peyrard. 2019. Studying summarization evaluation metrics in the appropriate scoring range. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 50935100.
- Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683 . · arXiv
- Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for squad. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.03822 . · arXiv
- Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250 . · arXiv
- Clément Rebuffel, Thomas Scialom, Laure Soulier, Benjamin Piwowarski, Sylvain Lamprier, Jacopo Staiano, Geoffrey Scoutheeten, and Patrick Gallinari. 2021. Data-questeval: A referenceless metric for data to text semantic evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Thomas Scialom, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Piwowarski, and Jacopo Staiano. 2019. Answers unite! unsupervised metrics for reinforced summarization models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01610 . · arXiv
- Thomas Scialom, Louis Martin, Jacopo Staiano, Éric Villemonte de la Clergerie, and Benoît Sagot. 2021. Rethinking automatic evaluation in sentence simplification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07560 . · arXiv
- Ramakrishna Vedantam, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. 2015. Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4566-4575.
- Alex Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Asking and answering questions to evaluate the factual consistency of summaries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04228 . · arXiv
- Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: Stateof-the-art natural language processing. ArXiv , pages arXiv-1910.
- Xinnuo Xu, Ondˇ rej Dušek, Jingyi Li, Verena Rieser, and Ioannis Konstas. 2020. Fact-based content weighting for evaluating abstractive summarisation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 5071-5081.
- Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J Liu. 2019a. Pegasus: Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.08777 . · arXiv
- Qingyu Zhou, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, Chuanqi Tan, Hangbo Bao, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Neural question generation from text: A preliminary study. In National CCF Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing , pages 662-671. Springer.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3571730 · Cited by 5,025 · see citing works
Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 2,142 · see citing works
“Notable implementations include (Durmus et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020a; Scialom et al., 2021; Honovich et al., 2021).”
<scp>SummaC</scp>: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization
Laban, P., Schnabel, T., Bennett, P. N., & Hearst, M. A. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00453 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.05232 · Cited by 2,516 · see citing works
“Notable implementations include (Durmus et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020a; Scialom et al., 2021; Honovich et al., 2021).”
Towards trustworthy LLMs: a review on debiasing and dehallucinating in large language models
Lin, Z., Guan, S., Zhang, W., Zhang, H., Li, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10896-y · Cited by 141 · see citing works
QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization
Fabbri, A., Wu, C.-S., Liu, W., & Xiong, C. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.187 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Honovich, O., Choshen, L., Aharoni, R., Neeman, E., Szpektor, I., & Abend, O. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.619 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Kamoi, R., Zhang, Y., Zhang, N., Han, J., & Zhang, R. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00713 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
AlignScore: Evaluating factual consistency with a unified alignment function
Zha, Y., Yang, Y., Li, R., & Hu, Z. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.634 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation
Honovich, O., Aharoni, R., Herzig, J., Taitelbaum, H., Kukliansy, D., Cohen, V., Scialom, T., Szpektor, I., Hassidim, A., & Matias, Y. (2022) · Proceedings of the Second DialDoc Workshop on Document-grounded Dialogue and Conversational Question Answering · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.dialdoc-1.19 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationLanguage Generation Models Can Cause Harm: So What Can We Do About It? An Actionable Survey
Kumar, S., Balachandran, V., Njoo, L., Anastasopoulos, A., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.241 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
RHO: Reducing Hallucination in Open-domain Dialogues with Knowledge Grounding
Ji, Z., Liu, Z., Lee, N., Yu, T., Wilie, B., Zeng, M., & Fung, P. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.275 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
A Field Guide to Automatic Evaluation of LLM-Generated Summaries
van Schaik, T. A., & Pugh, B. (2024) · Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3626772.3661346 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
TrueTeacher: Learning Factual Consistency Evaluation with Large Language Models
Gekhman, Z., Herzig, J., Aharoni, R., Elkind, C., & Szpektor, I. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.127 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Data-QuestEval: A Referenceless Metric for Data-to-Text Semantic Evaluation
Rebuffel, C., Scialom, T., Soulier, L., Piwowarski, B., Lamprier, S., Staiano, J., Scoutheeten, G., & Gallinari, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.633 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationFactPICO: Factuality Evaluation for Plain Language Summarization of Medical Evidence
Joseph, S., Chen, L., Trienes, J., Göke, H., Coers, M., Xu, W., Wallace, B., & Li, J. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.459 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Understanding Faithfulness and Reasoning of Large Language Models on Plain Biomedical Summaries
Fang, B., Dai, X., & Karimi, S. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.578 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Scirè, A., Ghonim, K., & Navigli, R. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.02270 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Can LLMs Correct Themselves? A Benchmark of Self-Correction in LLMs
Tie, G., Yuan, Z., Zhao, Z., Hu, C., Gu, T., Zhang, R., Zhang, S., Wu, J., Tu, X., Jin, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.16062
“Similarly, context-faithfulness, which examines whether LLMs maintain consistency with the context in which they are deployed, has also been a focal point in recent research [59, 17, 52].”
- Authors
- Scialom, T., Dray, P.-A., Lamprier, S., Piwowarski, B., Staiano, J., Wang, A., & Gallinari, P.
- Affiliations
- Université Paris Cité (FR)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
- Published
- 2021
- Pages
- 6594-6604
- OpenAlex
- W3211912523
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 14.67
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Grand Équipement National De Calcul Intensif
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- summarization evaluation, factual accuracy, abstractive summarization
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
