Improving Faithfulness by Augmenting Negative Summaries from Fake Documents

Tianshu Wang, Faisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus, He He

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperpeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages11913-11921
Number of pages9
StatePublished - 2022
Event2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022 - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Duration: Dec 7 2022Dec 11 2022

Conference

Conference2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022
Country/TerritoryUnited Arab Emirates
CityAbu Dhabi
Period12/7/2212/11/22

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computational Theory and Mathematics
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Information Systems

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Improving Faithfulness by Augmenting Negative Summaries from Fake Documents'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this