Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Expository Text Generation: Imitate, Retrieve, Paraphrase

Balepur, Nishant, Huang, Jie, Chang, Kevin·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
DOI 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.729
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.729

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 2 Overview of IRP. First, the Imitator (GPT-2) creates a stylistic content plan that outlines the facts to include in the next sentence. Next, the Retriever (DistilBERT) uses the content plan to find the outlined facts from the corpus. Finally, the Paraphraser (BART) rewords these facts in the style of the content plan. This sentence is appended to the output, which is used as the next prefix for the Imitator. These steps are repeated sentence-by-sentence.
Figure 2 Overview of IRP. First, the Imitator (GPT-2) creates a stylistic content plan that outlines the facts to include in the next sentence. Next, the Retriever (DistilBERT) uses the content plan to find the outlined facts from the corpus. Finally, the Paraphraser (BART) rewords these facts in the style of the content plan. This sentence is appended to the output, which is used as the next prefix for the Imitator. These steps are repeated sentence-by-sentence.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Distribution of IRP factual error types.
Figure 4 Distribution of IRP factual error types.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Prompt given for LLaMA (no retrieval) on WikiCS. For LLaMA+Retr, we add 'input: [information]' to the each in-context learning example, where information is the concatenated facts retrieved from DPR.
Figure 5 Prompt given for LLaMA (no retrieval) on WikiCS. For LLaMA+Retr, we add 'input: [information]' to the each in-context learning example, where information is the concatenated facts retrieved from DPR.CC-BY · From the PDF

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.

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?

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

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Akari Asai, Matt Gardner, and Hannaneh Ha- jishirzi. 2021. Evidentiality-guided generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. CoRR, abs/2112.08688. · arXiv
  2. Vidhisha Balachandran, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, William Cohen, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2022. Correcting diverse factual errors in abstractive summarization via post- editing and language model infilling. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing, pages 9818-9830, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.
  3. Siddhartha Banerjee and Prasenjit Mitra. 2015. Wikikreator: Improving wikipedia stubs automat- ically. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 867-877.
  4. Siddhartha Banerjee and Prasenjit Mitra. 2016. Wiki- write: Generating wikipedia articles automatically. In IJCAI, pages 2740-2746.
  5. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. CoRR, abs/2004.05150. · arXiv
  6. Faeze Brahman, Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Sudha Rao, Bill Dolan, Snigdha Chaturvedi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Grounded keys-to-text generation: To- wards factual open-ended generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 7397-7413. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.
  7. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
  8. Meng Cao, Yue Dong, Jiapeng Wu, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2020. Factual error correction for abstrac- tive summarization models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6251-6258, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Shuyang Cao and Lu Wang. 2021. CLIFF: contrastive learning for improving faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. CoRR, abs/2109.09209. · arXiv
  10. Ziqiang Cao, Wenjie Li, Sujian Li, and Furu Wei. 2018a. Retrieve, rerank and rewrite: Soft template based neural summarization. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 152-161.
  11. Ziqiang Cao, Furu Wei, Wenjie Li, and Sujian Li. 2018b. Faithful to the original: Fact-aware neural abstrac- tive summarization. In Proceedings of the Thirty- Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial In- telligence Conference and Eighth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'18/IAAI'18/EAAI'18. AAAI Press.
  12. Mingda Chen, Qingming Tang, Sam Wiseman, and Kevin Gimpel. 2019. Controllable paraphrase gener- ation with a syntactic exemplar. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 5972-5984, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  13. Susan J Davis and Janice Winek. 1989. Improving expository writing by increasing background knowl- edge. Journal of Reading, 33(3):178-181.
  14. Michael Denkowski and Alon Lavie. 2014. Meteor universal: Language specific translation evaluation for any target language. In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pages 376-380, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Yue Dong, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Multi- fact correction in abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9320-9331, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  16. Yue Dong, John Wieting, and Pat Verga. 2022. Faithful to the document or to the world? mitigating hal- lucinations via entity-linked knowledge in abstrac- tive summarization. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 1067-1082, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics.
  17. Martin Fajcik, Martin Docekal, Karel Ondrej, and Pavel Smrz. 2021. R2-D2: A modular baseline for open- domain question answering. In Findings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 854-870, Punta Cana, Dominican Re- public. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Xinyu Hua and Lu Wang. 2019. Sentence-level content planning and style specification for neural text gen- eration. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 591-602, Hong Kong, China. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI
  19. Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lu- cas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with re- trieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299. · arXiv
  20. Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Ac- tive retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983. · arXiv
  21. Daniel King, Zejiang Shen, Nishant Subramani, Daniel S. Weld, Iz Beltagy, and Doug Downey. 2022. Don't say what you don't know: Improving the con- sistency of abstractive summarization by constraining beam search. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Met- rics (GEM), pages 555-571, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  22. Narine Kokhlikyan, Vivek Miglani, Miguel Martin, Edward Wang, Bilal Alsallakh, Jonathan Reynolds, Alexander Melnikov, Natalia Kliushkina, Carlos Araya, Siqi Yan, and Orion Reblitz-Richardson. 2020. Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for pytorch. CoRR, abs/2009.07896. · arXiv
  23. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74-81.
  24. Shuai Lin, Wentao Wang, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Frank F. Xu, Eric Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2020. Data- to-text generation with style imitation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1589-1598, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  25. Peter J. Liu, Mohammad Saleh, Etienne Pot, Ben Goodrich, Ryan Sepassi, Lukasz Kaiser, and Noam Shazeer. 2018. Generating wikipedia by summariz- ing long sequences. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 -May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net.
  26. Jonathan Mallinson, Rico Sennrich, and Mirella Lapata. 2017. Paraphrasing revisited with neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 881-893, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
  27. Yuning Mao, Xiang Ren, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. 2020. Constrained abstractive summarization: Pre- serving factual consistency with constrained genera- tion. CoRR, abs/2010.12723. · arXiv
  28. Kazuki Matsumaru, Sho Takase, and Naoaki Okazaki. 2020. Improving truthfulness of headline genera- tion. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1335-1346, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  29. Ani Nenkova and Kathleen McKeown. 2011. Auto- matic summarization. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 5(2-3):103-233. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: A method for automatic evalu- ation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, ACL '02, page 311-318, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. KILT: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2523-2544, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Yashaswi Pochampally, Kamalakar Karlapalem, and Navya Yarrabelly. 2021. Semi-supervised automatic generation of wikipedia articles for named entities. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 10(2):72-79. · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v10i2.14834
  33. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  34. Hannah Rashkin, Eunsol Choi, Jin Yea Jang, Svitlana Volkova, and Yejin Choi. 2017. Truth of varying shades: Analyzing language in fake news and po- litical fact-checking. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 2931-2937, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Ruiyang Ren, Yingqi Qu, Jing Liu, Wayne Xin Zhao, QiaoQiao She, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. RocketQAv2: A joint training method for dense passage retrieval and passage re-ranking. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2825-2835, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Re- public. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  36. Leonor Santos and Sílvia Semana. 2015. Developing mathematics written communication through exposi- tory writing supported by assessment strategies. Ed- ucational studies in mathematics, 88(1):65-87.
  37. Christina Sauper and Regina Barzilay. 2009. Auto- matically generating wikipedia articles: A structure- aware approach. In Proceedings of the Joint Confer- ence of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Lan- guage Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 1 -Volume 1, ACL '09, page 208-216, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  38. Anshumali Shrivastava and Ping Li. 2014. Asymmetric lsh (alsh) for sublinear time maximum inner prod- uct search (mips). Advances in neural information processing systems, 27.
  39. Carol Chase Thomas, Carol Sue Englert, and Stephanie Gregg. 1987. An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8(1):21-30.
  40. Han Wang, Yang Liu, Chenguang Zhu, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, Yichong Xu, and Michael Zeng. 2021. Retrieval enhanced model for commonsense gener- ation. In Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 3056- 3062, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  41. Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Yuwei Fang, Yang Liu, Siqi Sun, Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Training data is more valuable than you think: A simple and effective method by retrieving from training data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3170-3179, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  42. Bolin Wei, Yongmin Li, Ge Li, Xin Xia, and Zhi Jin. 2020. Retrieve and refine: exemplar-based neural comment generation. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pages 349-360.
  43. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  44. Robert F Woolson. 2007. Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Wiley encyclopedia of clinical trials, pages 1-3.

Cited by

See all 4

Metadata

Authors
Balepur, N., Huang, J., & Chang, K.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Publisher
Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2023
Pages
11896-11919
DOI
10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.729
Cited by
4
References
16

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Expository Text Generation: Imitate, Retrieve, Paraphrase. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.729
The paper
Balepur, N., Huang, J., & Chang, K. (2023). Expository Text Generation: Imitate, Retrieve, Paraphrase. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.729

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.