Factual consistency is an essential quality of text summarization models in practical settings. Existing work in evaluating this dimension can be broadly categorized into two lines of research, entailment-based and question answering (QA)-based metrics, and different experimental setups often lead to contrasting conclusions as to which paradigm performs the best. In this work, we conduct an extensive comparison of entailment and QA-based metrics, demonstrating that carefully choosing the components of a QA-based metric, especially question generation and answerability classification, is critical to performance. Building on those insights, we propose an optimized metric, which we call QAFactEval, that leads to a 14% average improvement over previous QA-based metrics on the SummaC factual consistency benchmark, and also outperforms the best-performing entailment-based metric. Moreover, we find that QA-based and entailment-based metrics can offer complementary signals and be combined into a single metric for a further performance boost.
QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization
The research evaluates entailment and question answering-based metrics for factual consistency in text summarization, proposing QAFactEval for improved performance and suggesting their combination for even better results.
- Year
- 2021
- Venue
- NAACL 2022 7
- Authors
- 4
- Hosting
- Abstract onlyARXIV-DEFAULT
Cite
Notes
Only stored in your browser.
Attribution
- Abstract & full text
- arxiv.org/abs/2112.08542v2ARXIV-DEFAULT
- TL;DR
- Semantic Scholar