text
stringlengths 0
89.3k
|
---|
tions perform significantly worse without the com |
mon practice of an optimized threshold on sub |
sets of the dataset under test 2We introduce a |
large and diverse set of prompts each employing |
unique methods and evaluation protocols to detect |
hallucinations and factual inconsistencies in gen |
erated summaries 3Our endtoend framework |
achieves stateoftheart balanced accuracy on the |
AggreFactXSUM FTSOTA TofuEval Summary |
Level and HaluEval Summarization benchmarks |
in detecting factual errors in transformergenerated |
text summaries all without finetuning the lan |
guage model or relying on impractical thresholding |
techniques |
2 Datasets |
The AggreFact FTSOTA benchmark Tang et al |
2023 tests a models ability to identify factual |
inconsistencies in summaries produced by fine |
tuned transformerbased summarization models |
The dataset combines nine existing annotated fac |
tuality datasets converting all factual consistency |
scores to binary AggreFact is categorized based |
on the development timeline of the underlying sum |
marization models into FTSOTA EXFORMER |
and OLD categories and is divided into AggreFact |
CNNDM and AggreFactXSUM subsets We |
benchmark AggreFactXSUM FTSOTA and ex |
clude its CNNDM counterpart due to its insuf |
ficient number of factual inconsistencies and its |
more extractive summary style compared to the |
more abstractive style of current SOTA LLMs |
HaluEval Li et al 2023 a comprehensive |
benchmark for assessing hallucination in LLMs |
uses a ChatGPTbased twostep samplingthen |
filtering framework to create the dataset We focus |
4We craft prompts that aim to detect either factual incon |
sistencies or hallucinations allowing the ensembling model |
to determine the importance of each prompt for the datasets it |
is trained on This approach enables us to sidestep the subtle |
distinction between factual inconsistencies and hallucinations |
and instead let the ensembling model decide what prompts are |
most relevant for the training datan unique |
prompts |
Ensembler |
Combines list of |
boolean factuality |
scores into one |
probability 0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0LLM Prompt |
Template 1 |
Determine if the |
summary is |
consistent or |
inconsistent with the |
provided context |
Context |
Summary |
Output 0 if the text is |
inconsistent and 1 if |
the text is |
consistent 1D Binary |
Vector |
Concatenating |
Output of LLM |
Prompts Calibrator |
Adjusts predicted |
probabilities to |
match empirical |
results |
Summary |
The Spurs beat the |
Rockets 110 to 105 Context |
In a close overtime |
game the Rockets beat |
the Spurs with a final |
score of 110 to 105 |
Output |
Probability that the |
summary is factually |
consistent or absent |
of hallucination |
Figure 3 Diagram of our endtoend framework |
on the summarization subset of HaluEval which |
pairs each of the 10000 sampled document con |
texts with two summaries one with hallucination |
and one without |
TofuEval Tang et al 2024 is a topicfocused di |
alogue summarization benchmark containing 15K |
LLMgenerated summaries from the MediaSum |
Zhu et al 2021 and MeetingBank Hu et al |
2023 datasets TofuEval uses a twostage annota |
tion process where two expert linguists indepen |
dently assess the binary relevance completeness |
and factual consistency of each sentence in the sum |
maries We focus solely on the factual consistency |
annotations of main topic summaries merging sum |
marization sentences into one paragraph deemed |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.