Cited by 85Topic ModelingAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesNatural Language Processing Techniques

Improving Faithfulness in Abstractive Summarization with Contrast Candidate Generation and Selection

Open access
Chen, Sihao, Zhang, Fan, Sone, Kazoo, Roth, Dan·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Abstract

Despite significant progress in neural abstractive summarization, recent studies have shown that the current models are prone to generating summaries that are unfaithful to the original context.To address the issue, we study contrast candidate generation and selection as a model-agnostic post-processing technique to correct the extrinsic hallucinations (i.e.information not present in the source text) in unfaithful summaries.We learn a discriminative correction model by generating alternative candidate summaries where named entities and quantities in the generated summary are replaced with ones with compatible semantic types from the source document.This model is then used to select the best candidate as the final output summary.Our experiments and analysis across a number of neural summarization systems show that our proposed method is effective in identifying and correcting extrinsic hallucinations.We analyze the typical hallucination phenomenon by different types of neural summarization systems, in hope to provide insights for future work on the direction.

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.naacl-main.475

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • For noisy datasets where a large proportion of ground truth references suffer from hallucinations, modeling correction is a competitive choice to handle the hallucination problem.

    “Especially for noisy datasets where a large proportion of the ground truth references suffer from hallucinations, modeling correction is a competitive choice to handle the hallucination problem [32].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

  • Planning as a separate step in a two-step generator is prone to progressive amplification of the hallucination problem.

    “Planning can be a separate step in a two-step generator [32, 162, 208, 239, 269], which is prone to progressive amplification of the hallucination problem.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Introduction describes candidate generation followed by selection as a post-processing method, not planning as a separate step in a two-step generator. Section 4.2 says incorrect entity replacements can introduce intrinsic hallucinations, but does not describe progressive amplification. Searches for planning and amplification found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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

2 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Tanya Goyal and Greg Durrett. 2020. Evaluating fac- tuality in generation with dependency-level entail- ment. In Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3592-3603, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Su- pervised contrastive learning. Proceedings of the 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  3. Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018b. Ranking sentences for extractive summariza- tion with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Pa- pers), pages 1747-1759, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, S., Zhang, F., Sone, K., & Roth, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Published
2021
Pages
5935-5941
OpenAlex
W3172210712
Cited by
83
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 8
FWCI
8.66
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • Tencent
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-19-2-1004, FA8750)
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
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
abstractive summarization, faithfulness, hallucination correction, candidate selection, post-processing, neural 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