Search for: All records

The propensity of abstractive summarization models to make factual errors has been studied extensively, including design of metrics to detect factual errors and annotation of errors in current systems’ outputs. However, the ever-evolving nature of summarization systems, metrics, and annotated benchmarks makes factuality evaluation a moving target, and drawing clear comparisons among metrics has become increasingly difficult. In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models. Critically, our analysis shows that much of the recent improvement in the factuality detection space has been on summaries from older (pre-Transformer) models instead of more relevant recent summarization models. We further perform a finer-grained analysis per error-type and find similar performance variance across error types for different factuality metrics. Our results show that no one metric is superior in all settings or for all error types, and we provide recommendations for best practices given these insights. 

Abstract Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable successes in zero- and few-shot performance on various downstream tasks, paving the way for applications in high-stakes domains. In this study, we systematically examine the capabilities and limitations of LLMs, specifically GPT-3.5 and ChatGPT, in performing zero-shot medical evidence summarization across six clinical domains. We conduct both automatic and human evaluations, covering several dimensions of summary quality. Our study demonstrates that automatic metrics often do not strongly correlate with the quality of summaries. Furthermore, informed by our human evaluations, we define a terminology of error types for medical evidence summarization. Our findings reveal that LLMs could be susceptible to generating factually inconsistent summaries and making overly convincing or uncertain statements, leading to potential harm due to misinformation. Moreover, we find that models struggle to identify the salient information and are more error-prone when summarizing over longer textual contexts.