Cited by 42Text Readability and SimplificationTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Evaluating Factuality in Text Simplification

Open access
Devaraj, Ashwin, Sheffield, William, Wallace, Byron, Li, Junyi Jessy·2022·Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

models aim to make input texts more readable. Such methods have the potential to make complex information accessible to a wider audience, e.g., providing access to recent medical literature which might otherwise be impenetrable for a lay reader. However, such models risk introducing errors into automatically simplified texts, for instance by inserting statements unsupported by the corresponding original text, or by omitting key information. Providing more readable but inaccurate versions of texts may in many cases be worse than providing no such access at all. The problem of factual accuracy (and the lack thereof) has received heightened attention in the context of summarization models, but the factuality of automatically simplified texts has not been investigated. We introduce a taxonomy of errors that we use to analyze both references drawn from standard simplification datasets and state-of-the-art model outputs. We find that errors often appear in both that are not captured by existing evaluation metrics, motivating a need for research into ensuring the factual accuracy of automated simplification models.

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/v1/2022.acl-long.506

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Technical options to overcome limitations in factuality and mitigate bias-related harms can generally be implemented throughout the entire development process of LLMs.

    “Technical options to overcome limitations in factuality and mitigate (bias-related) harms can generally be implemented throughout the entire development process of LLMs.”

    From The future landscape of large language models in medicine (2023) · cites this paper as [66]

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

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Carroll John, Minnen Guido, Canning Yvonne, Devlin Siobhan, and Tait John. 1998. Practical simplification of english newspaper text to assist aphasic readers. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98 Workshop on Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Assistive Technology, pages 7– 10.
  2. Damay Jerwin Jan S, Lojico Gerard Jaime D, Lu Kimberly Amanda L, Tarantan D, and Ong E. 2006. SIMTEXT: Text simplification of medical literature. In Proceedings of the 3rd National Natural Language Processing Symposium-Building Language Tools and Resources, pages 34– 38.
  3. Falke Tobias, Ribeiro Leonardo F. R., Utama Prasetya Ajie, Dagan Ido, and Gurevych Iryna. 2019b. Ranking generated summaries by correctness: An interesting but challenging application for natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2214– 2220, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. Kryscinski Wojciech, McCann Bryan, Xiong Caiming, and Socher Richard. 2020b. Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9332– 9346, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Raffel Colin, Shazeer Noam, Roberts Adam, Lee Katherine, Narang Sharan, Matena Michael, Zhou Yanqi, Li Wei, and Liu Peter J.. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140): 1– 67.34305477
  6. Van Dijk Teun A. 2013. News as discourse. Routledge.
  7. Wang Alex, Cho Kyunghyun, and Lewis Mike. 2020a. Asking and answering questions to evaluate the factual consistency of summaries. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5008– 5020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Wang Alex, Cho Kyunghyun, and Lewis Mike. 2020b. Asking and answering questions to evaluate the factual consistency of summaries. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Devaraj, A., Sheffield, W., Wallace, B., & Li, J. J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2022
Volume
2022
Pages
7331-7345
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285265395
Cited by
40
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 3
FWCI
5.11
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1901117, 2107524, 1850153)
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01lm012086-08)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01-LM012086)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
text simplification, factual accuracy, factuality evaluation, error taxonomy, readability, information loss, summarization, evaluation metrics

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