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. 

Pre-trained language models (e.g. BART) have shown impressive results when fine-tuned on large summarization datasets. However, little is understood about this fine-tuning process, including what knowledge is retained from pre-training time or how content selection and generation strategies are learnt across iterations. In this work, we analyze the training dynamics for generation models, focusing on summarization. Across different datasets (CNN/DM, XSum, MediaSum) and summary properties, such as abstractiveness and hallucination, we study what the model learns at different stages of its fine-tuning process. We find that a propensity to copy the input is learned early in the training process consistently across all datasets studied. On the other hand, factual errors, such as hallucination of unsupported facts, are learnt in the later stages, though this behavior is more varied across domains. Based on these observations, we explore complementary approaches for modifying training: first, disregarding high-loss tokens that are challenging to learn and second, disregarding low-loss tokens that are learnt very quickly in the latter stages of the training process. We show that these simple training modifications allow us to configure our model to achieve different goals, such as improving factuality or improving abstractiveness.