REVIEW 1 cited by
Reducing Quantity Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarization
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Reducing Quantity Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarization
read the original abstract
It is well-known that abstractive summaries are subject to hallucination---including material that is not supported by the original text. While summaries can be made hallucination-free by limiting them to general phrases, such summaries would fail to be very informative. Alternatively, one can try to avoid hallucinations by verifying that any specific entities in the summary appear in the original text in a similar context. This is the approach taken by our system, Herman. The system learns to recognize and verify quantity entities (dates, numbers, sums of money, etc.) in a beam-worth of abstractive summaries produced by state-of-the-art models, in order to up-rank those summaries whose quantity terms are supported by the original text. Experimental results demonstrate that the ROUGE scores of such up-ranked summaries have a higher Precision than summaries that have not been up-ranked, without a comparable loss in Recall, resulting in higher F$_1$. Preliminary human evaluation of up-ranked vs. original summaries shows people's preference for the former.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Investigating Symbolic Triggers of Hallucination in Gemma Models Across HaluEval and TruthfulQA
Symbolic triggers like modifiers and named entities keep Gemma hallucination rates at 64-79% across model scales, suggesting larger models do not eliminate this failure mode.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.