PreprintCited by 16Topic ModelingAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.

Hallucinated but Factual! Inspecting the Factuality of Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarization

Open access

Abstract

State-of-the-art abstractive summarization systems often generate \emph{hallucinations}; i.e., content that is not directly inferable from the source text. Despite being assumed incorrect, we find that much hallucinated content is factual, namely consistent with world knowledge. These factual hallucinations can be beneficial in a summary by providing useful background information. In this work, we propose a novel detection approach that separates factual from non-factual hallucinations of entities. Our method utilizes an entity's prior and posterior probabilities according to pre-trained and finetuned masked language models, respectively. Empirical results suggest that our approach vastly outperforms two baselines %in both accuracy and F1 scores and strongly correlates with human judgments. % on factuality classification tasks. Furthermore, we show that our detector, when used as a reward signal in an off-line reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm, significantly improves the factuality of summaries while maintaining the level of abstractiveness.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2109.09784

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.

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 16

Metadata

Authors
Cao, M., Dong, Y., & Cheung, J. C. K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4308539010
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
hallucination detection, factual hallucination, abstractive summarization, masked language models, reward signals

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