ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarization
Open accessAbstract
The performance of text summarization has been greatly boosted by pre-trained language models. A main concern of existing methods is that most generated summaries are not factually inconsistent with their source documents. To alleviate the problem, many efforts have focused on developing effective factuality evaluation metrics based on natural language inference, question answering, and syntactic dependency et al. However, these approaches are limited by either their high computational complexity or the uncertainty introduced by multi-component pipelines, resulting in only partial agreement with human judgement. Most recently, large language models(LLMs) have shown excellent performance in not only text generation but also language comprehension. In this paper, we particularly explore ChatGPT's ability to evaluate factual inconsistency under a zero-shot setting by examining it on both coarse-grained and fine-grained evaluation tasks including binary entailment inference, summary ranking, and consistency rating. Experimental results indicate that ChatGPT generally outperforms previous evaluation metrics across the three tasks, indicating its great potential for factual inconsistency evaluation. However, a closer inspection of ChatGPT's output reveals certain limitations including its preference for more lexically similar candidates, false reasoning, and inadequate understanding of instructions.
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?
LLMs have recently been shown to be effective in assessing information consistency between a document and its summary in zero-shot settings.
“LLMs have recently been shown to be effective in assessing information consistency between a document and its summary in zero-shot settings (Luo et al., 2023).”
From SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Luo et al., 2023
The final evaluation output can either be a binary judgment on faithfulness or a k-point Likert scale indicating the degree of faithfulness.
“The final evaluation output can either be a binary judgment on faithfulness [199] or a k-point Likert scale indicating the degree of faithfulness [95].”
From A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions (2025) · cites this paper as [199]
By providing LLMs with concrete evaluation guidelines and feeding them both the model-generated and source content, they can effectively assess faithfulness.
“By providing LLMs with concrete evaluation guidelines and feeding them both the model-generated and source content, they can effectively assess faithfulness.”
From A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions (2025) · cites this paper as [199]
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wen- liang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Zi- wei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, et al. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactiv- ity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023. · arXiv
- Kay Henning Brodersen, Cheng Soon Ong, Klaas Enno Stephan, and Joachim M Buhmann. 2010. The bal- anced accuracy and its posterior distribution. In 2010 20th international conference on pattern recog- nition, pages 3121-3124. IEEE.
- 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.
- Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. · arXiv
- Esin Durmus, He He, and Mona Diab. 2020a. FEQA: A question answering evaluation framework for faithfulness assessment in abstractive summariza- tion. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5055-5070, Online. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Esin Durmus, He He, and Mona T Diab. 2020b. Feqa: A question answering evaluation framework for faithfulness assessment in abstractive summa- rization. ArXiv, abs/2005.03754. · arXiv
- Alexander R Fabbri, Wojciech Kryściński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. Summeval: Re-evaluating summarization evaluation. Transactions of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, 9:391-409.
- Tobias Falke, Leonardo F. R. Ribeiro, Prasetya Ajie Utama, Ido Dagan, and Iryna Gurevych. 2019a. 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
- Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. ArXiv, abs/2302.04166. · arXiv
- Ben Goodrich, Vinay Rao, Peter J Liu, and Moham- mad Saleh. 2019. Assessing the factual accuracy of generated text. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 166-175.
- Tanya Goyal and Greg Durrett. 2020. Evaluating fac- tuality in generation with dependency-level entail- ment. pages 3592-3603. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (ACL). · DOI · Paper page
- Dandan Huang, Leyang Cui, Sen Yang, Guangsheng Bao, Kun Wang, Jun Xie, and Yue Zhang. 2020. What have we achieved on text summarization? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 446-469, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
- Yichong Huang, Xiachong Feng, Xiaocheng Feng, and Bing Qin. 2021. The factual inconsistency problem in abstractive text summarization: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14839. · arXiv
- Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Xing Wang, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. Is chatgpt a good translator? a preliminary study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08745. · arXiv
- Tom Kocmi and Christian Federmann. 2023a. Large language models are state-of-the-art evaluators of translation quality. ArXiv, abs/2302.14520. · arXiv
- Tom Kocmi and Christian Federmann. 2023b. Large language models are state-of-the-art evaluators of translation quality. ArXiv, abs/2302.14520. · arXiv
- Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. ArXiv, abs/2205.11916. · arXiv
- Wojciech Kryściński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2020. Evaluating the fac- tual consistency of abstractive text summarization. pages 9332-9346. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). · DOI · Paper page
- Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2021. Keep it simple: Unsuper- vised simplification of multi-paragraph text. In Pro- ceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics and the 11th In- ternational Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6365- 6378, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N Bennett, and Marti A Hearst. 2022. Summac: Re-visiting nli- based models for inconsistency detection in summa- rization. Transactions of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, 10:163-177.
- Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Mar- jan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre- training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for auto- matic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summariza- tion Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Yang Liu and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Text summariza- tion with pretrained encoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3730-3740, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining ap- proach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692. · arXiv
- Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan T McDonald. 2020. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. ArXiv, abs/2005.00661. · arXiv
- Anshuman Mishra, Dhruvesh Patel, Aparna Vijayaku- mar, Xiang Lorraine Li, Pavan Kapanipathi, and Kar- tik Talamadupula. 2021. Looking beyond sentence- level natural language inference for question answer- ing and text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Hu- man Language Technologies, pages 1322-1336, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Mavuto M Mukaka. 2012. A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi medical journal, 24(3):69-71.
- Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Caglar Gulcehre, Bing Xiang, et al. 2016. Abstractive text summariza- tion using sequence-to-sequence rnns and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06023. · arXiv
- Feng Nan, Ramesh Nallapati, Zhiguo Wang, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Henghui Zhu, Dejiao Zhang, Kathleen McKeown, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Entity- level factual consistency of abstractive text summa- rization. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2727- 2733, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. OpenAI. 2022. Chatgpt. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt. · DOI
- Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E. Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv, abs/2203.02155. · arXiv
- Artidoro Pagnoni, Vidhisha Balachandran, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. Understanding factuality in abstrac- tive summarization with frank: A benchmark for fac- tuality metrics. · DOI · Paper page
- Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language process- ing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476. · arXiv
- Yiwei Qin, Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2022. T5score: Discriminative fine-tuning of generative evaluation metrics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05726. · arXiv
- Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Elizabeth-Jane Pavlick, and Suzana Ili'c et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. ArXiv, abs/2211.05100. · arXiv
- Alex Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Asking and answering questions to evaluate the fac- tual consistency of summaries. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 5008-5020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Jiaan Wang, Yunlong Liang, Fandong Meng, Zhixu Li, Jianfeng Qu, and Jie Zhou. 2023a. Cross- lingual summarization via chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14229. · arXiv
- Jiaan Wang, Yunlong Liang, Fandong Meng, Haoxiang Shi, Zhixu Li, Jinan Xu, Jianfeng Qu, and Jie Zhou. 2023b. Is chatgpt a good nlg evaluator? a prelimi- nary study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04048. · arXiv
- Jiaan Wang, Yunlong Liang, Fandong Meng, Haoxiang Shi, Zhixu Li, Jinan Xu, Jianfeng Qu, and Jie Zhou. 2023c. Is chatgpt a good nlg evaluator? a prelimi- nary study. ArXiv, abs/2303.04048. · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Huai hsin Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elic- its reasoning in large language models. ArXiv, abs/2201.11903. · arXiv
- 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
- Kailai Yang, Shaoxiong Ji, Tianlin Zhang, Qianqian Xie, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2023a. On the eval- uations of chatgpt and emotion-enhanced prompt- ing for mental health analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03347. · arXiv
- Xianjun Yang, Yan Li, Xinlu Zhang, Haifeng Chen, and Wei Cheng. 2023b. Exploring the limits of chat- gpt for query or aspect-based text summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08081. · arXiv
- Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text gener- ation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:27263-27277.
- Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Pe- ter Liu. 2020. Pegasus: Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11328-11339.
- PMLR.
- Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Can chatgpt understand too? a comparative study on chatgpt and fine-tuned bert. ArXiv, abs/2302.10198. · 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
SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models
Manakul, P., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.557 · Cited by 557 · see citing works
A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335 · 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
“The final evaluation output can either be a binary judgment on faithfulness (Luo et al., 2023b) or a k-point Likert scale indicating the degree of faithfulness (Gao et al., 2023b).”
Towards Interpretable Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models
Yang, K., Ji, S., Zhang, T., Xie, Q., Kuang, Z., & Ananiadou, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.370 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Self-citationVeselovsky, V., Ribeiro, M. H., & West, R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.07899 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
“ing easily done with the aid of commercially available LLMs (Luo et al., 2023).”
Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators
Koo, R., Lee, M., Raheja, V., Park, J. I., Kim, Z. M., & Kang, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.17012 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
“…such as machine translation (Kocmi and Feder-mann, 2023), summarization (Shen et al., 2023; Gao et al., 2023), code generation (Zhuo, 2023), writing assistance (Schick et al., 2023; Raheja et al., 2023), factual consistency (Cohen et al., 2023; Gekhman et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2023), and more.”
BackgroundMiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents
Tang, L., Laban, P., & Durrett, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10774 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
GastroBot: a Chinese gastrointestinal disease chatbot based on the retrieval-augmented generation
Zhou, Q., Liu, C., Duan, Y., Sun, K., Li, Y., Kan, H., Gu, Z., Shu, J., & Hu, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1392555 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
TrueTeacher: Learning Factual Consistency Evaluation with Large Language Models
Gekhman, Z., Herzig, J., Aharoni, R., Elkind, C., & Szpektor, I. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.127 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
TofuEval: Evaluating Hallucinations of LLMs on Topic-Focused Dialogue Summarization
Tang, L., Shalyminov, I., Wong, A., Burnsky, J., Vincent, J., Yang, Y., Singh, S., Feng, S., Song, H., Su, H., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.251 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
GPTuner: An LLM-Based Database Tuning System
Lao, J., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Cheng, Z., Chen, W., Tang, M., & Wang, J. (2025) · ACM SIGMOD Record · doi:10.1145/3733620.3733641 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Luo, Z., Xie, Q., & Ananiadou, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2303.15621
- OpenAlex
- W4361230777
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 32
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- 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
- text summarization, ChatGPT, large language models, zero-shot evaluation, natural language inference
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
