Cited by 38Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques

TrueTeacher: Learning Factual Consistency Evaluation with Large Language Models

Open access
Gekhman, Zorik, Herzig, Jonathan, Aharoni, Roee, Elkind, Chen, Szpektor, Idan·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Factual consistency evaluation is often conducted using Natural Language Inference (NLI) models, yet these models exhibit limited success in evaluating summaries.Previous work improved such models with synthetic training data.However, the data is typically based on perturbed human-written summaries, which often differ in their characteristics from real model-generated summaries and have limited coverage of possible factual errors.Alternatively, large language models (LLMs) have recently shown promising results in directly evaluating generative tasks, but are too computationally expensive for practical use.Motivated by these limitations, we introduce TrueTeacher, a method for generating synthetic data by annotating diverse model-generated summaries using a LLM.Unlike prior work, TrueTeacher does not rely on human-written summaries, and is multilingual by nature.Experiments on the TRUE benchmark show that a student model trained using our data, substantially outperforms both the state-of-the-art model with similar capacity, and the LLM teacher.In a systematic study, we compare TrueTeacher to existing synthetic data generation methods and demonstrate its superiority and robustness to domain-shift.We also show that our method generalizes to multilingual scenarios.Lastly, we release our largescale synthetic dataset (1.4M examples), generated using TrueTeacher, and a checkpoint trained on this data.1

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/v1/2023.emnlp-main.127

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • These models often fail to distinguish between mere association and actual causation.

    “As highlighted by recent research from DeepMind and conceptual analyses by TrueTheta [182-184], these models often fail to distinguish between mere association and actual causation.”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [182]

    The Introduction discusses models’ difficulty evaluating whether summaries are factually consistent with source documents, and §8 discusses possible labeling errors. Neither addresses whether models confuse association with causation; searches for causal reasoning and correlation found no passage making that point. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLMs, which form the cognitive core of most AI Agents, are highly effective at detecting statistical correlations within training data, but they do not truly understand cause-and-effect relationships.

    “While LLMs, which form the cognitive core of most AI Agents are highly effective at detecting statistical correlations within training data, they do not truly understand cause-andeffect relationships.”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [182]

    The Introduction discusses using LLMs to evaluate factual consistency, and the Limitations discuss possible labeling errors (page numbers unavailable). Neither addresses whether LLMs detect statistical correlations in training data, lack cause-and-effect understanding, or form the core of most AI agents. Searches for correlation and causal reasoning found no passage supporting those claims. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Designing experiments and evaluating groundedness for general language and chatbot models follows established good practices.

    “Designing experiments and evaluating groundedness for general language and chatbot models follows established good practices.7,30,34–37”

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: 1

  1. Tobias Falke, Leonardo F. R. Ribeiro, Prasetya Ajie Utama, Ido Dagan, and Iryna Gurevych. 2019b. Ranking generated summaries by correctness: An in- teresting but challenging application for natural lan- guage inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, pages 2214-2220, Florence, Italy. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gekhman, Z., Herzig, J., Aharoni, R., Elkind, C., & Szpektor, I.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2023
Pages
2053-2070
OpenAlex
W4389519430
Cited by
33
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8
FWCI
5.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
Keywords
synthetic data generation, large language models, teacher-student learning, multilingual summarization, domain shift, synthetic dataset

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