Adversarial NLI for Factual Correctness in Text Summarisation Models
Open accessAbstract
We apply the Adversarial NLI dataset to train the NLI model and show that the model has the potential to enhance factual correctness in abstract summarization. We follow the work of Falke et al. (2019), which rank multiple generated summaries based on the entailment probabilities between an source document and summaries and select the summary that has the highest entailment probability. The authors' earlier study concluded that current NLI models are not sufficiently accurate for the ranking task. We show that the Transformer models fine-tuned on the new dataset achieve significantly higher accuracy and have the potential of selecting a coherent summary.
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
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?
More advanced studies have proposed methods such as fine-tuning on adversarial datasets, decomposing the entailment decisions at the dependency arc level, and segmenting documents into sentence units then aggregating scores between sentence pairs.
“Building on this, more advanced studies have proposed methods such as fine-tuning on adversarial datasets [17], decomposing the entailment decisions at the dependency arc level [101], and segmenting documents into sentence units then aggregating scores between sentence pairs [154].”
From A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
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
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 48,293 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
(2004) · Cited by 9,718 · see citing works
XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding
Yang, Z., Dai, Z., Yang, Y., Carbonell, J., Salakhutdinov, R., & Le, Q. V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.08237 · Cited by 6,687 · see citing works
DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter
Sanh, V., Debut, L., Chaumond, J., & Wolf, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.01108 · Cited by 4,653 · see citing works
A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference
Bowman, S. R., Angeli, G., Potts, C., & Manning, C. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1075 · Cited by 3,377 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
(1989) · Cited by 3,214 · see citing works
Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.08608 · Cited by 3,121 · see citing works
Jain, S., & Wallace, B. C. (2019) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1357 · Cited by 2,287 · see citing works
Shortcut learning in deep neural networks
Geirhos, R., Jacobsen, J.-H., Michaelis, C., Zemel, R., Brendel, W., Bethge, M., & Wichmann, F. A. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-020-00257-z · Cited by 2,224 · see citing works
TinyBERT: Distilling BERT for natural language understanding
Jiao, X., Yin, Y., Shang, L., Jiang, X., Chen, X., Li, L., Wang, F., & Liu, Q. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.372 · Cited by 1,786 · see citing works
Text Summarization with Pretrained Encoders
Liu, Y., & Lapata, M. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1387 · Cited by 1,779 · see citing works
What Does BERT Look at? An Analysis of BERT’s Attention
Clark, K., Khandelwal, U., Levy, O., & Manning, C. D. (2019) · BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP (BlackboxNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-4828 · Cited by 1,514 · see citing works
Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Data
Gururangan, S., Swayamdipta, S., Levy, O., Schwartz, R., Bowman, S., & Smith, N. A. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-2017 · Cited by 907 · see citing works
Hypothesis Only Baselines in Natural Language Inference
Poliak, A., Naradowsky, J., Haldar, A., Rudinger, R., & Durme, B. V. (2018) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation · doi:10.18653/v1/s18-2023 · Cited by 685 · see citing works
Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization
Kryscinski, W., McCann, B., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.750 · Cited by 669 · see citing works
Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understanding
Nie, Y., Williams, A., Dinan, E., Bansal, M., Weston, J., & Kiela, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.441 · Cited by 656 · see citing works
A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models
Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., & Pedreschi, D. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3236009 · Cited by 629 · see citing works
Fast Abstractive Summarization with Reinforce-Selected Sentence Rewriting
Chen, Y.-C., & Bansal, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1063 · Cited by 601 · see citing works
A Multiscale Visualization of Attention in the Transformer Model
Vig, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-3007 · Cited by 600 · see citing works
Generating Wikipedia by Summarizing Long SequencesPreprint
Liu, P. J., Saleh, M., Pot, E., Goodrich, B., Sepassi, R., Kaiser, Ł., & Shazeer, N. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.10198 · Cited by 578 · see citing works
Interpretable Machine Learning
Molnar, C. (2020) · Cited by 506 · see citing works
Faithful to the Original: Fact Aware Neural Abstractive Summarization
Cao, Z., Wei, F., Li, W., & Li, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11912 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluation
Kryscinski, W., Keskar, N. S., McCann, B., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1051 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarization
Zhang, J., Zhao, Y., Saleh, M., & Liu, P. X. (2020) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 325 · see citing works
Falke, T., Ribeiro, L. F. R., Utama, P. A., Dagan, I., & Gurevych, I. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1213 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Soft Layer-Specific Multi-Task Summarization with Entailment and Question Generation
Guo, H., Pasunuru, R., & Bansal, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1064 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
WT5?! Training Text-to-Text Models to Explain their PredictionsPreprint
Narang, S., Raffel, C., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Fiedel, N., & Malkan, K. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.14546 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Learning by Semantic Similarity Makes Abstractive Summarization BetterPreprint
Yoon, W., Yeo, Y. S., Jeong, M., Yi, B.-J., & Kang, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.07767 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Paul Michel, Omer Levy, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Are sixteen heads really better than one? CoRR , abs/1905.10650. · arXiv
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 2,142 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
“Building on this, more advanced studies have proposed methods such as fine-tuning on adversarial datasets (Barrantes et al., 2020), decomposing the entailment decisions at the dependency arc level (Goyal and Durrett, 2020), and segmenting documents into sentence units then aggregating scores…”
QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization
Fabbri, A., Wu, C.-S., Liu, W., & Xiong, C. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.187 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
A survey on Recognizing Textual Entailment as an NLP Evaluation
Poliak, A. (2020) · Workshop on Evaluation and Comparison of NLP Systems (Eval4NLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.eval4nlp-1.10 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
A Critical Evaluation of Evaluations for Long-form Question Answering
Xu, F., Song, Y., Iyyer, M., & Choi, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.181 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
X-FACTOR: A Cross-metric Evaluation of Factual Correctness in Abstractive Summarization
Chaudhury, S., Swaminathan, S., Gunasekara, C., Crouse, M., Ravishankar, S., Kimura, D., Murugesan, K., Astudillo, R. F., Naseem, T., Kapanipathi, P., et al. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.478 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
SWING: Balancing Coverage and Faithfulness for Dialogue Summarization
Huang, K.-H., Singh, S., Ma, X., Xiao, W., Nan, F., Dingwall, N., Wang, W. Y., & McKeown, K. R. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.37 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Abstractive Text Summarization Using Bert and Adversarial Learning
Prakash, A., Rohith, G., & Umamageswaran, J. (2024) · International Conference on Technological Advancements in Computational Sciences (ICTACS) · doi:10.1109/ictacs62700.2024.10840865 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Li, Y., Li, L., Hu, D., Li, Y., Zhou, Y., Litvak, M., & Vanetik, N. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3695932/v1 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Li, L., Hu, D., Hao, X., Chen, D., Zhang, X., Zhang, Z., Zhou, Y., Litvak, M., et al. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslpro.2025.3567744 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Investigating Crowdsourcing Protocols for Evaluating the Factual Consistency of SummariesPreprint
Tang, X., Fabbri, A. R., Li, H., Mao, Z., Adams, G., Wang, B., Celikyilmaz, A., Mehdad, Y., & Radev, D. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.09195 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Investigating Crowdsourcing Protocols for Evaluatingthe Factual Consistency of Summaries
Tang, X., Fabbri, A. R., Mao, Z., Adams, G., Wang, B., Li, H., Mehdad, Y., & Radev, D. (2021)
- Authors
- Barrantes, M., Herudek, B., & Wang, R.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2005.11739
- OpenAlex
- W3026758008
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- natural language inference, factual accuracy, text summarization, abstract summarization, transformer fine-tuning, factual hallucination
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
