Entity-level Factual Adaptiveness of Fine-tuning based Abstractive Summarization Models

Suppose we have a sample $X_{o}=(D_{o},S_{o})$ which consists of document $D_{o}=\{d_{1},d_{2},...,d_{M}\}$ and a reference summary $S_{o}=\{s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{T}\}$. We denote a pre-trained language model as $\psi$ and a fine-tuned summarization model as $\phi$.

To construct a counterfactual sample $X_{c}=(D_{c},S_{c})$ from $X_{o}$, we first select the original named entity $E_{o}$ which (i) exists in both $D_{o}$ and $S_{o}$ and (ii) contains the parametric knowledge of $\psi$. We then replace $E_{o}$ with the counterfactual named entity $E_{c}$ to synthesize $X_{c}$ which consists of the counterfactual document $D_{c}$ and factually consistent summary $S_{c}$.

We define factual adaptiveness metrics $M_{CL}$ and $M_{FC}$ on two perspectives: conditional likelihood and factual consistency, respectively. Specifically, we input original and counterfactual documents alternately into the summarization model, measuring two distinct differences: i) the conditional likelihood of original (counterfactual) named entities within the reference summary and ii) the factual consistency between the original (counterfactual) document and the generated summary.

We define $M_{CL}$ as follows:

where $S_{c,<t}$ and $S_{o,<t}$ denote the summary prefix of first $t-1$ tokens of $S_{c}$ and $S_{o}$, respectively. $e_{c}$ and $e_{o}$ denote the first tokens of $E_{c}$ and $E_{o}$, respectively, assuming that $e_{c}$ and $e_{o}$ are $t$-th tokens of each summary. $M_{CL}$ indicates the factual adaptiveness of model $\phi$ on the perspective of the conditional likelihood when the counterfactual document and the summary prefix are given.

Because $M_{CL}$ does not consider the summary generated by $\phi$, we introduce complementary metric $M_{FC}$ as follows:

where $f$ denotes factual consistency scoring function such as QuestEval (Scialom et al., 2021), and $S^{\phi}(D)$ denotes the summary generated by $\phi$ given the document $D$. The second term of $M_{FC}$ involves inputting documents where a knowledge conflict occurs, leading to the generation of factually inconsistent summaries from the model. As a result, $M_{FC}$ approximates factual adaptiveness by calculating the reduction in the factual consistency of the summarization model due to knowledge conflicts.

In the remaining text, we refer to factual consistency as the attribute between the original document and the generated summary if further clarification is not provided. Note that factual consistency is different from $M_{FC}$ which measures the difference of factual consistency scores between original and counterfactual samples.

To satisfy our assumption: (i) $E_{o}$ contains the parametric knowledge of the model and (ii) $D_{c}$ occurs knowledge conflict, it is critical to select appropriate $E_{o}$ and $E_{c}$. We utilize PLM $\psi$ during the entity selection to accurately construct counterfactual sample $X_{c}$.

We measure ROUGE-L (Lin, 2004) and QuestEval score, which is known to be aligned with human judgments (Scialom et al., 2021), on the original test set and $M_{CL}$/$M_{FC}$ scores on the factual adaptiveness evaluation set. We use three approaches for the baseline: data filtering (Filtering, Nan et al., 2021), contrastive learning (CLIFF, Cao and Wang, 2021), and advanced decoding (Decoding, Wan et al., 2023) and two backbone PLMs: PEGASUS_LARGE (Zhang et al., 2020) and BART_LARGE (Lewis et al., 2020) for the analysis. We also evaluate models that are simply fine-tuned with negative log-likelihood objectives (NLL) for comparison. For the baseline re-implementation, we use HuggingFace¹¹1https://github.com/huggingface/transformers for PEGASUS based models and fairseq²²2https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq for BART based models. Hyperparameters for each baseline can be found in Appendix E.

We use test sets of XSum (Narayan et al., 2018) and CNN/DailyMail (CNNDM, Hermann et al., 2015) to construct factual adaptiveness evaluation sets. We search the threshold $\tau$ using validation sets so that the extracted factual adaptiveness evaluation set is about 10% of the original validation set (We use Top group and Scenario 1). $\tau$ and dataset statistics can be found in Appendix E.

To specify the evaluation set, information on (i) the type of PLM, (ii) the dataset, (iii) the type of counterfactual entity candidate group, and (iv) the type of validation scenario is required. For example, we denote XSum (PEGASUS, Top, S1) as the evaluation set based on the XSum test set using PEGASUS for the PLM, Top group for the counterfactual entity candidate group, and scenario 1 for the entity validation.

Scores of PEGASUS based models are shown in Table 1. Results on BART based models can be found in Appendix D, except for Decoding because the original training code for BART is implemented on fairseq, while the code for Decoding is based on HuggingFace.

Entity Validation Scenarios We first observe which of the two entity validation scenarios more effectively generates knowledge conflict. In most cases, it is observed that factual adaptiveness is much degraded for the evaluation sets constructed based on Scenario 2, especially in XSum. The results suggest that through Scenario 2, we can accurately detect prior knowledge of PLM and effectively induce knowledge conflicts compared to Scenario 1. Given the fact that the criterion used in Scenario 2 is similar to Equation 2, and they only differ in terms of the models used, we speculate that fine-tuned models share the knowledge with pre-trained models.

Counterfactual Entity Candidate Groups We can observe that $M_{CL}$ scores tend to increase in the order of Top, Mid, and Bot. Considering that the group is divided based on the conditional likelihood of PLM, the results indicate that our method controls the degree of parametric knowledge and knowledge conflict effectively.

In CNN/DailyMail, the tendency for $M_{FC}$ between the candidate groups is weak compared to XSum even with the consistency in $M_{CL}$. We speculate that the low abstractiveness of CNN/DailyMail (Dreyer et al., 2023) has improved overall factual adaptiveness with respect to $M_{CL}$ and $M_{FC}$, resulting in the similarity of $M_{FC}$ between the candidate groups.

Factual Adaptiveness vs. Factual Consistency While Filtering greatly enhances both factual consistency and factual adaptiveness, Decoding and CLIFF show minimal improvements in $M_{CL}$ and $M_{FC}$ scores compared to NLL. The results imply that methods for factual consistency improvement do not necessarily increase robustness against knowledge conflict, and factual consistency is not strongly correlated with factual adaptiveness.

We apply the same procedure used for building a factual adaptiveness evaluation set to construct the augmentation set. For each dataset, we use the same threshold $\tau$ determined during the corresponding evaluation set construction. We further proceed to sample the obtained augmentation set at a certain ratio $\rho$ of the original training set.

In recent research, contrastive learning has been applied to enhance factual consistency (Cao and Wang, 2021; Wan and Bansal, 2022). Our method can be integrated with a contrastive learning-based approach if it can map positive/negative summaries to counterfactual documents.

In the context of contrastive learning, we apply previous contrastive learning set construction methods to the counterfactual samples. For CLIFF, we utilize the provided positive/negative summaries by replacing original entities in the summaries with counterfactual entities. For FactPEGASUS (Wan and Bansal, 2022), we feed augmented datasets to the provided contrastive learning pipelines³³3https://github.com/meetdavidwan/factpegasus.

In the remaining text, the term ours refers to a model that integrates controllable counterfactual data augmentation with the CLIFF training method. We also conduct experiments on FactPEGASUS and experimental results on XSum can be found in Appendix F.

We use Scenario 2 and Mid group to construct augmented contrastive learning training sets in accordance with the conclusions drawn in Section 3.3. To regulate the size of the training dataset, we sample the augmentation set from counterfactual samples, setting $\rho$ to 0.1. We use the remaining settings as those of CLIFF in Appendix E. Note that we vary the sampling seed of the counterfactual samples in the multiple seed experiment.

To obtain the positive/negative summaries of the counterfactual document, we utilize the entities $E_{o}$ and $E_{c}$ used when obtaining the counterfactual document and apply the same entity replacement process to positive and negative summaries of the corresponding original document. If there is no negative summary for the original document, we obtain it by performing entity replacement on $S_{o}$ with other counterfactual entities. To gather a sufficient number of negative summaries, multiple counterfactual entity candidates are sampled during the process in Section 2.2.3 before the validation.

We compare the results of our model with those of NLL and CLIFF in Table 2 because CLIFF and ours sequentially apply additional techniques to NLL: contrastive learning and controllable counterfactual data augmentation, respectively.

From the perspective of conditional likelihood (i.e., $M_{CL}$), we can observe that our method significantly improves factual adaptiveness. Compared to the contrastive learning baseline, our method also enhances factual consistency on the original test set in the BART-XSum case.

Although our models consistently reduce the $M_{CL}$ score, there is a case where our $M_{FC}$ score is higher than that of CLIFF in BART fine-tuned with CNN/DailyMail. One possible explanation is that our method is more effective in terms of factual adaptiveness on datasets with a high level of abstractiveness such as XSum, while there is a misalignment between $M_{CL}$ and $M_{FC}$ on datasets with low abstractiveness (Dreyer et al., 2023). We also provide the results of the ChatGPT preference test in Appendix G.

The proportion of summaries that contain the counterfactual entity without the original entity given the counterfactual document is shown in Figure 2.

We can observe that our model exhibits a significantly high rate of generating counterfactual entities in both datasets. Filtering exhibits relatively higher values among the baselines, which is consistent with the results in Table 1. Compared to our method, however, Filtering still generates original entities at a high rate. The results also indicate that our approach successfully addresses entity-level hallucination problems in the BART-CNNDM setting where $M_{FC}$ is slightly higher than that of CLIFF.

We vary the counterfactual entity candidate group during the training set construction, as shown in Table 3.

It is observed that $M_{CL}$ scores are minimal when the group type of training set is aligned with the type of evaluation set. We guess that the models tend to fit their factual adaptiveness to the distribution of training sets. It is also observed that models fine-tuned with Mid group show low $M_{CL}$ scores across three evaluation sets. Specifically, the score difference between the three evaluation groups of models fine-tuned with Bot group is the largest. Based on those observations, we conclude that the distribution of counterfactual samples is important for entity-level generalization of factual adaptiveness.

We also vary the augmentation ratio $\rho$ which refers to the ratio of the size of the counterfactual samples to the size of the original training set in Table 3. In all the cases, models of the augmentation ratio of 10% exhibit much lower $M_{CL}$ scores compared to the augmentation ratio of 5%, which implies that the degree of factual adaptiveness can be controlled by modifying $\rho$. Interestingly, increasing $\rho$ does not always diminish the QEval scores while consistently enhancing factual adaptiveness. The results reemphasize a close-to-orthogonal relationship between factual consistency and factual adaptiveness.

To observe the relationship between factual adaptiveness and abstractiveness, we measure the MINT abstractiveness score (Dreyer et al., 2023) as shown in Table 4. The abstractiveness of summaries generated by models fine-tuned with XSum demonstrates significantly higher levels of abstractiveness when compared to CNNDM, aligning with the findings of previous studies (Dreyer et al., 2023).

In the baselines, the lowest overall abstractiveness is found in Filtering with the highest factual adaptiveness. On the other hand, our approach demonstrates a relatively minor trade-off between factual adaptiveness and abstractiveness. The results suggest that our method substantially enhances factual adaptiveness while preserving the abstractiveness of generated summaries.

Table 5 shows summarization results given the counterfactual document where the entity Turkey is replaced by Portballintrae. We use a model weight of BART_LARGE provided by HuggingFace⁴⁴4https://huggingface.co/facebook/bart-large-xsum to generate the sample for Decoding. There are clues to infer Turkey such as Kars and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan which result in hallucinated summaries of baselines. On the other hand, our model generates an accurate summary by adapting to the knowledge associated with Portballintrae. We present another case study in Appendix H.

Studies on factual consistency of summarization models have been consistently conducted (Cao and Wang, 2021; Wan and Bansal, 2022; Rajagopal et al., 2022; Wan et al., 2023; Roit et al., 2023). They enhance factual consistency through approaches from various directions such as post-editing (Chen et al., 2021; Balachandran et al., 2022), data augmentation (Rajagopal et al., 2022), contrastive learning (Cao and Wang, 2021; Wan and Bansal, 2022), and advanced decoding (King et al., 2022; Wan et al., 2023).

Rajagopal et al. (2022) synthesize factually inconsistent summaries and augment the corresponding prompts to the document. In this paper, we further modify input documents to trigger knowledge conflict effectively, analyze strategies to consider knowledge conflict, and demonstrate the robustness to entity-level knowledge conflict.

There are also studies focusing on attributes other than factual consistency in summarization models (West et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022; Cheang et al., 2023). West et al. (2022) analyze whether the model is grounded in the document by ablating facts related to the summary within the document. Wu et al. (2022) analyze the factual robustness, indicating whether the model assigns a low likelihood to an adversarial entity when given the document and factual prompt.

Recent studies in summarization have utilized general-purpose pre-trained language models (Lewis et al., 2020; Raffel et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022) or have pre-trained the language model for summarization (Zhang et al., 2020; Wan and Bansal, 2022).

Recent studies have focused on addressing the hallucination problem in the language model caused by knowledge conflict, especially in question answering domain (Longpre et al., 2021; Neeman et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2023b).

Ladhak et al. (2023) and Cheang et al. (2023) analyze the hallucination problem of summarization models caused by knowledge conflict in a specific domain: name-nationality knowledge and evolving knowledge over time, respectively. On the other hand, we analyze the robustness of summarization models concerning entity-level knowledge conflicts in arbitrary domains. Moreover, we exploit parametric knowledge from PLM to effectively measure and improve factual adaptiveness.