There has been an increasing interest in detecting hallucinations in model-generated texts, both manually and automatically, at varying levels of granularity. However, most existing methods fail to precisely pinpoint the errors. In this work, we introduce QASemConsistency, a new formalism for localizing factual inconsistencies in attributable text generation, at a fine-grained level. Drawing inspiration from Neo-Davidsonian formal semantics, we propose decomposing the generated text into minimal predicate-argument level propositions, expressed as simple question-answer (QA) pairs, and assess whether each individual QA pair is supported by a trusted reference text. As each QA pair corresponds to a single semantic relation between a predicate and an argument, QASemConsistency effectively localizes the unsupported information. We first demonstrate the effectiveness of the QASemConsistency methodology for human annotation, by collecting crowdsourced annotations of granular consistency errors, while achieving a substantial inter-annotator agreement ($\kappa > 0.7)$. Then, we implement several methods for automatically detecting localized factual inconsistencies, with both supervised entailment models and open-source LLMs.

Detecting semantic arguments of a predicate word has been conventionally modeled as a sentence-level task. The typical reader, however, perfectly interprets predicate-argument relations in a much wider context than just the sentence where the predicate was evoked. In this work, we reformulate the problem of argument detection through textual entailment to capture semantic relations across sentence boundaries. We propose a method that tests whether some semantic relation can be inferred from a full passage by first encoding it into a simple and standalone proposition and then testing for entailment against the passage. Our method does not require direct supervision, which is generally absent due to dataset scarcity, but instead builds on existing NLI and sentence-level SRL resources. Such a method can potentially explicate pragmatically understood relations into a set of explicit sentences. We demonstrate it on a recent document-level benchmark, outperforming some supervised methods and contemporary language models.

Despite the seeming success of contemporary grounded text generation systems, they often tend to generate factually inconsistent text with respect to their input. This phenomenon is emphasized in tasks like summarization, in which the generated summaries should be corroborated by their source article. In this work, we leverage recent progress on textual entailment models to directly address this problem for abstractive summarization systems. We use reinforcement learning with reference-free, textual entailment rewards to optimize for factual consistency and explore the ensuing trade-offs, as improved consistency may come at the cost of less informative or more extractive summaries. Our results, according to both automatic metrics and human evaluation, show that our method considerably improves the faithfulness, salience, and conciseness of the generated summaries.