The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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).”
From FacTool: Factuality Detection in Generative AI - A Tool Augmented Framework for Multi-Task and Multi-Domain Scenarios (2023) · cites this paper as Fabbri et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.”
From A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions (2025) · cites this paper as [80]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
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 54,325
RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 · Cited by 16,515
Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929
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
The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans
Efron, B. (1982) · Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970319 · Cited by 8,120
SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text
Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1264 · Cited by 6,208
HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processing
Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., Delangue, C., Moi, A., Cistac, P., Rault, T., Louf, R., Funtowicz, M., et al. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.03771 · Cited by 3,347
A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference
Williams, A., Nangia, N., & Bowman, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1101 · Cited by 3,342
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
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Dan Friedman, Ben Dodge, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Single-dataset experts for multi-dataset qa. In Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
- 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
- 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
- PMLR.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 4,688
“Building on this foundational work, Fabbri et al. (2022) conducted an in-depth evaluation of the components within QA-based metrics, yielding further enhancements in faithfulness evaluation.”
Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization
Zhang, T., Ladhak, F., Durmus, E., Liang, P., McKeown, K., & Hashimoto, T. B. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00632 · Cited by 415
FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation
Min, S., Krishna, K., Lyu, X., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Koh, P., Iyyer, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Hajishirzi, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.741 · Cited by 407
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
“Building on this foundational work, Fabbri et al. (2022) conducted an in-depth evaluation of the components within QA-based metrics, yielding further enhancements in faithfulness evaluation.”
Anh-Hoang, D., Tran, V., & Nguyen, L.-M. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1622292 · Cited by 146
Metadata
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
