CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 60Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Sticking to the Facts: Confident Decoding for Faithful Data-to-Text Generation

Open access
Tian, Ran, Narayan, Shashi, Sellam, Thibault, Parikh, Ankur P.·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1910.08684arXiv 1910.08684
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We address the issue of hallucination in data-to-text generation, i.e., reducing the generation of text that is unsupported by the source. We conjecture that hallucination can be caused by an encoder-decoder model generating content phrases without attending to the source; so we propose a confidence score to ensure that the model attends to the source whenever necessary, as well as a variational Bayes training framework that can learn the score from data. Experiments on the WikiBio (Lebretet al., 2016) dataset show that our approach is more faithful to the source than existing state-of-the-art approaches, according to both PARENT score (Dhingra et al., 2019) and human evaluation. We also report strong results on the WebNLG (Gardent et al., 2017) dataset.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1910.08684

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • Duplicated examples from the pretraining corpus bias the model to favor generating repeats of the memorized phrases from the duplicated examples.

    “Lee et al. [134] show that duplicated examples from the pretraining corpus bias the model to favor generating repeats of the memorized phrases from the duplicated examples.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [134]

    Section 3, p. 3, says a language model can learn a source-specific fact from training data as a fixed generation pattern. That supports the general concern about repeated learned content, but the paper does not attribute this effect to duplicated examples in a pretraining corpus or show that duplicates bias generation toward memorized phrases. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Decoders can attend to the wrong part of the encoded input source, leading to erroneous generation.

    “First, decoders can attend to the wrong part of the encoded input source, leading to erroneous generation [251].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [251]

    The Introduction (p. 2) says that wrongly associating a source-content phrase with the language model rather than attending to the source may cause hallucination. Modeling Confident Decoding (p. 3) likewise links unsupported words to generation without attention to the source. Neither passage says that attending to the wrong *part* of the encoded source causes the error. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • When encoders learn wrong correlations between different parts of the training data, it could result in erroneous generation that diverges from the input.

    “When encoders learn wrong correlations between different parts of the training data, it could result in erroneous generation that diverges from the input [6, 71, 142, 251].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [251]

    The Introduction (p. 2) says the model learns wrong correlations between parts of the training data and links those correlations to hallucination. It does not specifically assign that learning to the encoder; its example concerns the decoder’s attention and language-modeling components. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The appearance of hallucinations is found not to affect the BLEU score of the translated text.

    “Most detrimentally, the appearance of hallucinations is found not to affect the BLEU score of the translated text [251, 325].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [251]

    In §4.1 (p. 6), the paper reports that some systems achieved high BLEU scores despite being less faithful, and says BLEU seems more correlated with coverage than faithfulness. That supports the concern that BLEU can fail to reflect hallucinations, but it does not establish that hallucinations have no effect on BLEU. The results concern data-to-text generation, not translated text. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 52

  1. Martin Abadi, Paul Barham, Jianmin Chen, Zhifeng Chen, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh Levenberg, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek G. Murray, Benoit Steiner, Paul Tucker, Vijay Vasudevan, Pete Warden, Martin Wicke, Yuan Yu, and Xiaoqiang Zheng. 2016. TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation , pages 265-283, Savannah, GA, USA.
  2. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. CoRR , abs/1409.0473. · arXiv
  3. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarization , pages 65-72.
  4. Tilman Becker. 2002. Practical, template-based natural language generation with TAG. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks , pages 8083, Universit´ a di Venezia.
  5. Mark Braverman, Xinyi Chen, Sham M Kakade, Karthik Narasimhan, Cyril Zhang, and Yi Zhang. 2019. Calibration, entropy rates, and memory in language models. CoRR , abs/1906.05664. · arXiv
  6. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merri¨ enboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoderdecoder for statistical machine translation. CoRR , abs/1406.1078. · arXiv
  7. George Doddington. 2002. Automatic evaluation of machine translation quality using n-gram cooccurrence statistics. In Proceedings of the second international conference on Human Language Technology Research , pages 138-145.
  8. Ondˇ rej Duˇ sek, Jekaterina Novikova, and Verena Rieser. 2018. Findings of the e2e nlg challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01170 . · arXiv
  9. Thiago Castro Ferreira, Chris van der Lee, Emiel van Miltenburg, and Emiel Krahmer. 2019. Neural data-to-text generation: A comparison between pipeline and end-to-end architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09022 . · arXiv
  10. Mary Ellen Foster and Michael White. 2004. Techniques for text planning with XSLT. In Proceeedings of the Workshop on NLP and XML: RDF/RDFS and OWL in Language Technology , pages 1-8, Barcelona, Spain.
  11. Claire Gardent, Anastasia Shimorina, Shashi Narayan, and Laura Perez-Beltrachini. 2017. Creating training corpora for nlg micro-planners. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 179-188. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Albert Gatt and Ehud Reiter. 2009. SimpleNLG: A realisation engine for practical applications. In Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation , pages 90-93, Athens, Greece.
  13. Sebastian Gehrmann, Yuntian Deng, and Alexander M. Rush. 2018. Bottom-up abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 4098-4109, Brussels, Belgium.
  14. Jiatao Gu, Zhengdong Lu, Hang Li, and Victor O.K. Li. 2016. Incorporating copying mechanism in sequence-to-sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 1631-1640, Berlin, Germany.
  15. Hamza Harkous, Isabel Groves, and Amir Saffari. 2020. Have your text and use it too! end-to-end neural datato-text generation with semantic fidelity. http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.06577 · arXiv
  16. Sepp Hochreiter and J¨ urgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation , 9(8):1735-1780.
  17. Nal Kalchbrenner and Phil Blunsom. 2013. Recurrent continuous translation models. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1700-1709.
  18. Mihir Kale. 2020. Text-to-text pre-training for data-totext tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10433 . · arXiv
  19. Chris Kedzie and Kathleen McKeown. 2019. A good sample is hard to find: Noise injection sampling and self-training for neural language generation models. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation , pages 584-593, Tokyo, Japan.
  20. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations , San Diego, CA, USA.
  21. Guillaume Klein, Yoon Kim, Yuntian Deng, Jean Senellart, and Alexander M Rush. 2017. Opennmt: Opensource toolkit for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.02810 . · arXiv
  22. Philipp Koehn. 2009. Statistical machine translation . Cambridge University Press.
  23. Philipp Koehn and Rebecca Knowles. 2017. Six challenges for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation , pages 28-39, Vancouver.
  24. Daphne Koller and Nir Friedman. 2009. Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques . MIT press.
  25. Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. Sentencepiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06226 . · arXiv
  26. Karen Kukich. 1983. Design of a knowledge-based report generator. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 145-150, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
  27. R´ emi Lebret, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2016. Neural text generation from structured data with application to the biography domain. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1203-1213, Austin, Texas.
  28. Yann LeCun, Bernhard E. Boser, John S. Denker, Donnie Henderson, R. E. Howard, Wayne E. Hubbard, and Lawrence D. Jackel. 1990. Handwritten digit recognition with a back-propagation network. In D. S. Touretzky, editor, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2 , pages 396-404. MorganKaufmann.
  29. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries acl. In Proceedings of Workshop on Text Summarization Branches Out Post Conference Workshop of ACL , pages 2017-05.
  30. Tianyu Liu, Kexiang Wang, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2018. Table-to-text generation by structure-aware seq2seq learning. In Proceedings of the The 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 30th Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence , pages 4881-4888, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
  31. Thang Luong, Hieu Pham, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. Effective approaches to attention-based neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1412-1421, Lisbon, Portugal.
  32. Shuming Ma, Pengcheng Yang, Tianyu Liu, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2019. Key fact as pivot:A two-stage model for low resource table-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 2047-2057, Florence, Italy.
  33. Inderjeet Mani. 1999. Advances in automatic text summarization . MIT press.
  34. Kathleen McKeown. 1992. Text generation . Cambridge University Press.
  35. John W. Paisley, David M. Blei, and Michael I. Jordan. 2012. Variational bayesian inference with stochastic search. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1363--1370, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
  36. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics , pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
  37. Ankur P Parikh, Xuezhi Wang, Sebastian Gehrmann, Manaal Faruqui, Bhuwan Dhingra, Diyi Yang, and Dipanjan Das. 2020. Totto: A controlled table-to-text generation dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14373 . · arXiv
  38. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1532-1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  39. Ratish Puduppully, Li Dong, and Mirella Lapata. 2019a. Data-to-text generation with content selection and planning. In Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 69086915, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
  40. Ratish Puduppully, Li Dong, and Mirella Lapata. 2019b. Data-to-text generation with entity modeling. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 2023-2035, Florence, Italy.
  41. Ehud Reiter, Somayajulu Sripada, Jim Hunter, Jin Yu, and Ian Davy. 2005. Choosing words in computergenerated weather forecasts. Artificial Intelligence , 167(1-2):137-169.
  42. Sascha Rothe, Shashi Narayan, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2019. Leveraging pre-trained checkpoints for sequence generation tasks. CoRR , abs/1907.12461. · arXiv
  43. Alexander M. Rush, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 379-389, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  44. Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointergenerator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada.
  45. Anastasia Shimorina and Claire Gardent. 2018. Handling rare items in data-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Natural Language Generation , pages 360-370. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  46. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, and K. Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 , pages 3104-3112. Curran Associates, Inc.
  47. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pages 5998-6008. Curran Associates, Inc.
  48. Oriol Vinyals and Quoc Le. 2015. A neural conversational model. CoRR , abs/1506.05869. · arXiv
  49. Sam Wiseman, Stuart Shieber, and Alexander Rush. 2017. Challenges in data-to-document generation. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 2253-2263, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  50. Sam Wiseman, Stuart Shieber, and Alexander Rush. 2018. Learning neural templates for text generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 3174-3187, Brussels, Belgium.
  51. Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V. Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, Jeff Klingner, Apurva Shah, Melvin Johnson, Xiaobing Liu, Lukasz Kaiser, Stephan Gouws, Yoshikiyo Kato, Taku Kudo, Hideto Kazawa, Keith Stevens, George Kurian, Nishant Patil, Wei Wang, Cliff Young, Jason Smith, Jason Riesa, Alex Rudnick, Oriol Vinyals, Greg Corrado, Macduff Hughes, and Jeffrey Dean. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. CoRR , abs/1609.08144. · arXiv
  52. Qingyu Zhou, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2017. Selective encoding for abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 1095-1104, Vancouver, Canada.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tian, R., Narayan, S., Sellam, T., & Parikh, A. P.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Tian, Ran
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1910.08684
arXiv
1910.08684
OpenAlex
W2981259322
Cited by
60
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 9
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
hallucinations, data-to-text generation, source fidelity, confidence scores, variational inference, encoder-decoder architecture, WebNLG

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