Papers › Synthetic Imitation Edit Feedback for Factual Alignment in Clinical Summarization

Synthetic Imitation Edit Feedback for Factual Alignment in Clinical Summarization

30 Oct 2023arXiv:2310.20033archive 2025-07-28

Prakamya Mishra, Zonghai Yao, Shuwei Chen, Beining Wang, Rohan Mittal, Hong Yu

Large Language Models (LLMs) like the GPT and LLaMA families have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in capturing and condensing critical contextual information and achieving state-of-the-art performance in the summarization task. However, community concerns about these models' hallucination issues continue to rise. LLMs sometimes generate factually hallucinated summaries, which can be extremely harmful in the clinical domain NLP tasks (e.g., clinical note summarization), where factually incorrect statements can lead to critically erroneous diagnoses. Fine-tuning LLMs using human feedback has shown the promise of aligning LLMs to be factually consistent during generation, but such training procedure requires high-quality human-annotated data, which can be extremely expensive to get in the clinical domain. In this work, we propose a new pipeline using ChatGPT instead of human experts to generate high-quality feedback data for improving factual consistency in the clinical note summarization task. We focus specifically on edit feedback because recent work discusses the shortcomings of human alignment via preference feedback in complex situations (such as clinical NLP tasks that require extensive expert knowledge), as well as some advantages of collecting edit feedback from domain experts. In addition, although GPT has reached the expert level in many clinical NLP tasks (e.g., USMLE QA), there is not much previous work discussing whether GPT can generate expert-level edit feedback for LMs in the clinical note summarization task. We hope to fill this gap. Finally, our evaluations demonstrate the potential use of GPT edits in human alignment, especially from a factuality perspective.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

9 samples harvested; 7 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 9 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from seasonyao/learnfromhumanedit. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections