Summarization is one of the most common tasks performed by large language models (LLMs), especially in applications like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). However, existing evaluations of hallucinations in LLM-generated summaries, and evaluations of hallucination detection models both suffer from a lack of diversity and recency in the LLM and LLM families considered. This paper introduces FaithBench, a summarization hallucination benchmark comprising challenging hallucinations made by 10 modern LLMs from 8 different families, with ground truth annotations by human experts. “Challenging” here means summaries on which popular, state-of-the-art hallucination detection models, including GPT-4o-as-a-judge, disagreed on. Our results show GPT-4o and GPT-3.5-Turbo produce the least hallucinations. However, most state-of-the-art hallucination detection models have near 50% accuracies on FaithBench, indicating lots of room for future improvement.

Factual consistency detection has gotten raised attention in the task of abstractive summarization. Many existing works rely on synthetic training data, which may not accurately reflect or match the inconsistencies produced by summarization models. In this paper, we first systematically analyze the shortcomings of the current methods in synthesizing inconsistent summaries. Current synthesis methods may fail to produce inconsistencies of coreference errors and discourse errors, per our quantitative and qualitative study. Then, employing the parameter-efficient finetuning (PEFT) technique, we discover that a competitive factual consistency detector can be achieved using thousands of real model-generated summaries with human annotations. Our study demonstrates the importance of real machine-generated texts with human annotation in NLG evaluation as our model outperforms the SOTA on the CoGenSumm, FactCC, Frank, and SummEval datasets.

Summarization is an important application of Large Language Models (LLMs). When judging the quality of a summary, factual consistency holds a significant weight. Despite numerous efforts dedicated to building factual inconsistency detectors, the exploration of explanability remains limited among existing effort. In this study, we incorporate both human-annotated and model-generated natural language explanations elucidating how a summary deviates and thus becomes inconsistent with its source article. We build our explanation-augmented dataset on top of the widely used SummaC summarization consistency benchmark. Additionally, we develop an inconsistency detector that is jointly trained with the collected explanations. Our findings demonstrate that integrating explanations during training not only enables the model to provide rationales for its judgments but also enhances its accuracy significantly.