Abstract:While large language models (LLMs) have proven to be effective on a large variety of tasks, they are also known to hallucinate information. To measure whether an LLM prefers factually consistent continuations of its input, we propose a new benchmark called FIB(Factual Inconsistency Benchmark) that focuses on the task of summarization. Specifically, our benchmark involves comparing the scores an LLM assigns to a factually consistent versus a factually inconsistent summary for an input news article. For factually consistent summaries, we use human-written reference summaries that we manually verify as factually consistent. To generate summaries that are factually inconsistent, we generate summaries from a suite of summarization models that we have manually annotated as factually inconsistent. A model's factual consistency is then measured according to its accuracy, i.e.\ the proportion of documents where it assigns a higher score to the factually consistent summary. To validate the usefulness of FIB, we evaluate 23 large language models ranging from 1B to 176B parameters from six different model families including BLOOM and OPT. We find that existing LLMs generally assign a higher score to factually consistent summaries than to factually inconsistent summaries. However, if the factually inconsistent summaries occur verbatim in the document, then LLMs assign a higher score to these factually inconsistent summaries than factually consistent summaries. We validate design choices in our benchmark including the scoring method and source of distractor summaries. Our code and benchmark data can be found at <a class="link-external link-https" href="https://github.com/r-three/fib" rel="external noopener nofollow">this https URL</a>.

Using Similarity to Evaluate Factual Consistency in Summaries

LongDocFACTScore: Evaluating the Factuality of Long Document Abstractive Summarisation

Do Automatic Factuality Metrics Measure Factuality? A Critical Evaluation

Evaluating Factual Consistency of Texts with Semantic Role Labeling

The Factual Inconsistency Problem in Abstractive Text Summarization: A Survey

Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Large Language Models Through News Summarization

Evaluating Factual Consistency of Summaries with Large Language Models

Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries

Evaluating Factuality in Cross-lingual Summarization

Are Factuality Checkers Reliable? Adversarial Meta-evaluation of Factuality in Summarization

FENICE: Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction

Evaluating the Tradeoff Between Abstractiveness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization

QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization

FIZZ: Factual Inconsistency Detection by Zoom-in Summary and Zoom-out Document

Questioning the Validity of Summarization Datasets and Improving Their Factual Consistency

Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics

Abstract Summarization Model Based on Semantic Graphs and Entity Pointers

Factual Consistency Evaluation of Summarisation in the Era of Large Language Models

On Improving Summarization Factual Consistency from Natural Language Feedback

Annotating and Modeling Fine-grained Factuality in Summarization

Calibrating Likelihoods towards Consistency in Summarization Models