Cited by 129Topic ModelingAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesNatural Language Processing Techniques

QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization

Open access
Fabbri, Alexander, Wu, Chien-Sheng, Liu, Wenhao, Xiong, Caiming·2022·Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Abstract

Alexander Fabbri, Chien-Sheng Wu, Wenhao Liu, Caiming Xiong. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2022.

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.naacl-main.187

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • Current literature on detecting and mitigating factual errors generated by machine learning models focuses predominantly on a single specific task.

    “Current literature on detecting and mitigating factual errors generated by machine learning models focuses predominantly on a single specific task, for example, retrieval-augmented verification models for QA (Lewis et al., 2020), hallucination detection models for text summarization (Fabbri et al., 2022), and execution-based evaluation for code (Shi et al., 2022).”
  • Fabbri et al. conducted an in-depth evaluation of the components within QA-based metrics, yielding further enhancements in faithfulness evaluation.

    “Building on this foundational work, Fabbri et al. [80] conducted an in-depth evaluation of the components within QA-based metrics, yielding further enhancements in faithfulness evaluation.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Dan Friedman, Ben Dodge, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Single-dataset experts for multi-dataset qa. In Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
  2. Fajri Koto, Jey Han Lau, and Timothy Baldwin. 2020. FFCI: A framework for interpretable auto- matic evaluation of summarization. ArXiv preprint, abs/2011.13662. · arXiv
  3. Alex Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Mike Lewis. 2020b. Asking and answering questions to evaluate the fac- tual consistency of summaries. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 5008-5020, Online. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  4. PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fabbri, A., Wu, C.-S., Liu, W., & Xiong, C.
Affiliations
Salesforce (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Published
2022
Pages
2587-2601
OpenAlex
W4226118367
Cited by
119
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 6
FWCI
12.30
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)
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
question answering, summarization, 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