Human evaluation has been the gold standard for checking faithfulness in abstractive summarization. However, with a challenging source domain like narrative, multiple annotators can agree a summary is faithful, while missing details that are obvious errors only once pointed out. We therefore introduce a new dataset, StorySumm, comprising LLM summaries of short stories with localized faithfulness labels and error explanations. This benchmark is for evaluation methods, testing whether a given method can detect challenging inconsistencies. Using this dataset, we first show that any one human annotation protocol is likely to miss inconsistencies, and we advocate for pursuing a range of methods when establishing ground truth for a summarization dataset. We finally test recent automatic metrics and find that none of them achieve more than 70% balanced accuracy on this task, demonstrating that it is a challenging benchmark for future work in faithfulness evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. By conducting a human evaluation on ten LLMs across different pretraining methods, prompts, and model scales, we make two important observations. First, we find instruction tuning, not model size, is the key to the LLM’s zero-shot summarization capability. Second, existing studies have been limited by low-quality references, leading to underestimates of human performance and lower few-shot and finetuning performance. To better evaluate LLMs, we perform human evaluation over high-quality summaries we collect from freelance writers. Despite major stylistic differences such as the amount of paraphrasing, we find that LLM summaries are judged to be on par with human written summaries.

Pre-trained large-scale language models (LLMs) excel at producing coherent articles, yet their outputs may be untruthful, toxic, or fail to align with user expectations. Current approaches focus on using reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) to improve model alignment, which works by transforming coarse human preferences of LLM outputs into a feedback signal that guides the model learning process. However, because this approach operates on sequence-level feedback, it lacks the precision to identify the exact parts of the output affecting user preferences. To address this gap, we propose a method to enhance LLM alignment through fine-grained token-level supervision. Specifically, we ask annotators to minimally edit less preferred responses within the standard reward modeling dataset to make them more favorable, ensuring changes are made only where necessary while retaining most of the original content. The refined dataset is used to train a token-level reward model, which is then used for training our fine-grained Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) model. Our experiment results demonstrate that this approach can improve LLM performance by up to 5.1% in terms of win rate against the reference model, compared with the traditional PPO model.

Two-step approaches, in which summary candidates are generated-then-reranked to return a single summary, can improve ROUGE scores over the standard single-step approach. Yet, standard decoding methods (i.e., beam search, nucleus sampling, and diverse beam search) produce candidates with redundant, and often low quality, content. In this paper, we design a novel method to generate candidates for re-ranking that addresses these issues. We ground each candidate abstract on its own unique content plan and generate distinct plan-guided abstracts using a model’s top beam. More concretely, a standard language model (a BART LM) auto-regressively generates elemental discourse unit (EDU) content plans with an extractive copy mechanism. The top K beams from the content plan generator are then used to guide a separate LM, which produces a single abstractive candidate for each distinct plan. We apply an existing re-ranker (BRIO) to abstractive candidates generated from our method, as well as baseline decoding methods. We show large relevance improvements over previously published methods on widely used single document news article corpora, with ROUGE-2 F1 gains of 0.88, 2.01, and 0.38 on CNN / Dailymail, NYT, and Xsum, respectively. A human evaluation on CNN / DM validates these results. Similarly, on 1k samples from CNN / DM, we show that prompting GPT-3 to follow EDU plans outperforms sampling-based methods by by 1.05 ROUGE-2 F1 points. Code to generate and realize plans is available at https://github.com/griff4692/edu-sum.

Recent work has identified noisy and misannotated data as a core cause of hallucinations and unfaithful outputs in Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks. Consequently, identifying and removing these examples is a key open challenge in creating reliable NLG systems. In this work, we introduce a framework to identify and remove low-quality training instances that lead to undesirable outputs, such as faithfulness errors in text summarization. We show that existing approaches for error tracing, such as gradient-based influence measures, do not perform reliably for detecting faithfulness errors in NLG datasets. We overcome the drawbacks of existing error tracing methods through a new, contrast-based estimate that compares undesired generations to human-corrected outputs. Our proposed method can achieve a mean average precision of 0.93 at detecting known data errors across synthetic tasks with known ground truth, substantially outperforming existing approaches. Using this approach and re-training models on cleaned data leads to a 70% reduction in entity hallucinations on the NYT dataset and a 55% reduction in semantic errors on the E2E dataset.

Large language models (LLMs) are subject to sociocultural and other biases previously identified using intrinsic evaluations. However, when and how these intrinsic biases in pre-trained LM representations propagate to downstream, fine-tuned NLP tasks like summarization is not well understood. In this work, we investigate one type of bias—name-nationality bias—and trace it from the pre-training stage to a downstream summarization task across multiple summarization modeling choices. We show that these biases manifest themselves as hallucinations in summarization, leading to factually incorrect summaries. We also find that this propagation of biases is algorithm-dependent: more abstractive models allow biases to propagate more directly to downstream tasks as hallucinated facts. Building on these observations, we further analyze how changes to the adaptation method and fine-tuning data set affect name nationality biases and show that while they can reduce the overall rate of hallucinations, they do not change the types of biases that do appear.

Selecting the “right” amount of information to include in a summary is a difficult task. A good summary should be detailed and entity-centric without being overly dense and hard to follow. To better understand this tradeoff, we solicit increasingly dense GPT-4 summaries with what we refer to as a “Chain of Density” (CoD) prompt. Specifically, GPT-4 generates an initial entity-sparse summary before iteratively incorporating missing salient entities without increasing the length. Summaries generated by CoD are more abstractive, exhibit more fusion, and have less of a lead bias than GPT-4 summaries generated by a vanilla prompt. We conduct a human preference study on 100 CNN DailyMail articles and find that humans prefer GPT-4 summaries that are more dense than those generated by a vanilla prompt and almost as dense as human written summaries. Qualitative analysis supports the notion that there exists a tradeoff between informativeness and readability. 500 annotated CoD summaries, as well as an extra 5,000 unannotated summaries, are freely available on HuggingFace (https://huggingface.co/datasets/griffin/chain_of_density).

Despite recent progress in abstractive summarization, systems still suffer from faithfulness errors. While prior work has proposed models that improve faithfulness, it is unclear whether the improvement comes from an increased level of extractiveness of the model outputs as one naive way to improve faithfulness is to make summarization models more extractive. In this work, we present a framework for evaluating the effective faithfulness of summarization systems, by generating a faithfulness-abstractiveness trade-off curve that serves as a control at different operating points on the abstractiveness spectrum. We then show that the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) baseline as well as recently proposed methods for improving faithfulness, fail to consistently improve over the control at the same level of abstractiveness. Finally, we learn a selector to identify the most faithful and abstractive summary for a given document, and show that this system can attain higher faithfulness scores in human evaluations while being more abstractive than the baseline system on two datasets. Moreover, we show that our system is able to achieve a better faithfulness-abstractiveness trade-off than the control at the same level of abstractiveness.

Model-based, reference-free evaluation metricshave been proposed as a fast and cost-effectiveapproach to evaluate Natural Language Generation(NLG) systems. Despite promising recentresults, we find evidence that reference-freeevaluation metrics of summarization and dialoggeneration may be relying on spuriouscorrelations with measures such as word overlap,perplexity, and length. We further observethat for text summarization, these metrics havehigh error rates when ranking current state-ofthe-art abstractive summarization systems. Wedemonstrate that these errors can be mitigatedby explicitly designing evaluation metrics toavoid spurious features in reference-free evaluation.

Hate speech detection is complex; it relies on commonsense reasoning, knowledge of stereotypes, and an understanding of social nuance that differs from one culture to the next. It is also difficult to collect a large-scale hate speech annotated dataset. In this work, we frame this problem as a few-shot learning task, and show significant gains with decomposing the task into its “constituent” parts. In addition, we see that infusing knowledge from reasoning datasets (e.g. ATOMIC2020) improves the performance even further. Moreover, we observe that the trained models generalize to out-of-distribution datasets, showing the superiority of task decomposition and knowledge infusion compared to previously used methods. Concretely, our method outperforms the baseline by 17.83% absolute gain in the 16-shot case.

Current abstractive summarization systems tend to hallucinate content that is unfaithful to the source document, posing a risk of misinformation. To mitigate hallucination, we must teach the model to distinguish hallucinated summaries from faithful ones. However, the commonly used maximum likelihood training does not disentangle factual errors from other model errors. To address this issue,we propose a back-translation-style approach to augment negative samples that mimic factual errors made by the model. Specifically, we train an elaboration model that generates hallucinated documents given the reference summaries, and then generates negative summaries from the fake documents. We incorporate the negative samples into training through a controlled generator, which produces faithful/unfaithful summaries conditioned on the control codes. Additionally, we find that adding textual entailment data through multitasking further boosts the performance. Experiments on three datasets (XSum, Gigaword, and WikiHow) show that our method consistently improves faithfulness without sacrificing informativeness according to both human and automatic evaluation

Evaluations in machine learning rarely use the latest metrics, datasets, or human evaluation in favor of remaining compatible with prior work. The compatibility, often facilitated through leaderboards, thus leads to outdated but standardized evaluation practices. We pose that the standardization is taking place in the wrong spot. Evaluation infrastructure should enable researchers to use the latest methods and what should be standardized instead is how to incorporate these new evaluation advances. We introduce GEMv2, the new version of the Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics Benchmark which uses a modular infrastructure for dataset, model, and metric developers to benefit from each other’s work. GEMv2 supports 40 documented datasets in 51 languages, ongoing online evaluation for all datasets, and our interactive tools make it easier to add new datasets to the living benchmark.

This paper introduces the shared task of summrizing documents in several creative domains, namely literary texts, movie scripts, and television scripts. Summarizing these creative documents requires making complex literary interpretations, as well as understanding non-trivial temporal dependencies in texts containing varied styles of plot development and narrative structure. This poses unique challenges and is yet underexplored for text summarization systems. In this shared task, we introduce four sub-tasks and their corresponding datasets, focusing on summarizing books, movie scripts, primetime television scripts, and daytime soap opera scripts. We detail the process of curating these datasets for the task, as well as the metrics used for the evaluation of the submissions. As part of the CREATIVESUMM workshop at COLING 2022, the shared task attracted 18 submissions in total. We discuss the submissions and the baselines for each sub-task in this paper, along with directions for facilitating future work.

Query-focused summaries of foreign-language, retrieved documents can help a user understand whether a document is actually relevant to the query term. A standard approach to this problem is to first translate the source documents and then perform extractive summarization to find relevant snippets. However, in a cross-lingual setting, the query term does not necessarily appear in the translations of relevant documents. In this work, we show that constrained machine translation and constrained post-editing can improve human relevance judgments by including a query term in a summary when its translation appears in the source document. We also present several strategies for selecting only certain documents for regeneration which yield further improvements

We introduce GEM, a living benchmark for natural language Generation (NLG), its Evaluation, and Metrics. Measuring progress in NLG relies on a constantly evolving ecosystem of automated metrics, datasets, and human evaluation standards. Due to this moving target, new models often still evaluate on divergent anglo-centric corpora with well-established, but flawed, metrics. This disconnect makes it challenging to identify the limitations of current models and opportunities for progress. Addressing this limitation, GEM provides an environment in which models can easily be applied to a wide set of tasks and in which evaluation strategies can be tested. Regular updates to the benchmark will help NLG research become more multilingual and evolve the challenge alongside models. This paper serves as the description of the data for the 2021 shared task at the associated GEM Workshop.

Typical ASR systems segment the input audio into utterances using purely acoustic information, which may not resemble the sentence-like units that are expected by conventional machine translation (MT) systems for Spoken Language Translation. In this work, we propose a model for correcting the acoustic segmentation of ASR models for low-resource languages to improve performance on downstream tasks. We propose the use of subtitles as a proxy dataset for correcting ASR acoustic segmentation, creating synthetic acoustic utterances by modeling common error modes. We train a neural tagging model for correcting ASR acoustic segmentation and show that it improves downstream performance on MT and audio-document cross-language information retrieval (CLIR).

Users of machine translation (MT) may want to ensure the use of specific lexical terminologies. While there exist techniques for incorporating terminology constraints during inference for MT, current APE approaches cannot ensure that they will appear in the final translation. In this paper, we present both autoregressive and non-autoregressive models for lexically constrained APE, demonstrating that our approach enables preservation of 95% of the terminologies and also improves translation quality on English-German benchmarks. Even when applied to lexically constrained MT output, our approach is able to improve preservation of the terminologies. However, we show that our models do not learn to copy constraints systematically and suggest a simple data augmentation technique that leads to improved performance and robustness.

We present a new summarization task, generating summaries of novel chapters using summary/chapter pairs from online study guides. This is a harder task than the news summarization task, given the chapter length as well as the extreme paraphrasing and generalization found in the summaries. We focus on extractive summarization, which requires the creation of a gold-standard set of extractive summaries. We present a new metric for aligning reference summary sentences with chapter sentences to create gold extracts and also experiment with different alignment methods. Our experiments demonstrate significant improvement over prior alignment approaches for our task as shown through automatic metrics and a crowd-sourced pyramid analysis.

We introduce WikiLingua, a large-scale, multilingual dataset for the evaluation of cross-lingual abstractive summarization systems. We extract article and summary pairs in 18 languages from WikiHow, a high quality, collaborative resource of how-to guides on a diverse set of topics written by human authors. We create gold-standard article-summary alignments across languages by aligning the images that are used to describe each how-to step in an article. As a set of baselines for further studies, we evaluate the performance of existing cross-lingual abstractive summarization methods on our dataset. We further propose a method for direct cross-lingual summarization (i.e., without requiring translation at inference time) by leveraging synthetic data and Neural Machine Translation as a pre-training step. Our method significantly outperforms the baseline approaches, while being more cost efficient during inference.

Leveraging large amounts of unlabeled data using Transformer-like architectures, like BERT, has gained popularity in recent times owing to their effectiveness in learning general representations that can then be further fine-tuned for downstream tasks to much success. However, training these models can be costly both from an economic and environmental standpoint. In this work, we investigate how to effectively use unlabeled data: by exploring the task-specific semi-supervised approach, Cross-View Training (CVT) and comparing it with task-agnostic BERT in multiple settings that include domain and task relevant English data. CVT uses a much lighter model architecture and we show that it achieves similar performance to BERT on a set of sequence tagging tasks, with lesser financial and environmental impact.

Systems for automatic argument generation and debate require the ability to (1) determine the stance of any claims employed in the argument and (2) assess the specificity of each claim relative to the argument context. Existing work on understanding claim specificity and stance, however, has been limited to the study of argumentative structures that are relatively shallow, most often consisting of a single claim that directly supports or opposes the argument thesis. In this paper, we tackle these tasks in the context of complex arguments on a diverse set of topics. In particular, our dataset consists of manually curated argument trees for 741 controversial topics covering 95,312 unique claims; lines of argument are generally of depth 2 to 6. We find that as the distance between a pair of claims increases along the argument path, determining the relative specificity of a pair of claims becomes easier and determining their relative stance becomes harder.

Research in the social sciences and psychology has shown that the persuasiveness of an argument depends not only the language employed, but also on attributes of the source/communicator, the audience, and the appropriateness and strength of the argument’s claims given the pragmatic and discourse context of the argument. Among these characteristics of persuasive arguments, prior work in NLP does not explicitly investigate the effect of the pragmatic and discourse context when determining argument quality. This paper presents a new dataset to initiate the study of this aspect of argumentation: it consists of a diverse collection of arguments covering 741 controversial topics and comprising over 47,000 claims. We further propose predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims and show that they outperform models that rely only on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument.

We incorporate an explicit neural interlingua into a multilingual encoder-decoder neural machine translation (NMT) architecture. We demonstrate that our model learns a language-independent representation by performing direct zero-shot translation (without using pivot translation), and by using the source sentence embeddings to create an English Yelp review classifier that, through the mediation of the neural interlingua, can also classify French and German reviews. Furthermore, we show that, despite using a smaller number of parameters than a pairwise collection of bilingual NMT models, our approach produces comparable BLEU scores for each language pair in WMT15.