Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2502.12372

Factual Inconsistency in Data-to-Text Generation Scales Exponentially with LLM Size: A Statistical Validation

Joy Mahapatra·Soumyajit Roy·Utpal Garain
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Monitoring factual inconsistency is essential for ensuring trustworthiness in data-to-text generation (D2T). While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across various D2T tasks, previous studies on scaling laws have primarily focused on generalization error through power law scaling to LLM size (i.e., the number of model parameters). However, no research has examined the impact of LLM size on factual inconsistency in D2T. In this paper, we investigate how factual inconsistency in D2T scales with LLM size by exploring two scaling laws: power law and exponential scaling. To rigorously evaluate and compare these scaling laws, we employ a statistical validation framework consisting of three key stages: predictive performance estimation, goodness-of-fit assessment, and comparative analysis. For a comprehensive empirical study, we analyze three popular LLM families across five D2T datasets, measuring factual inconsistency inversely using four state-of-the-art consistency metrics. Our findings, based on exhaustive empirical results and validated through our framework, reveal that, contrary to the widely assumed power law scaling, factual inconsistency in D2T follows an exponential scaling with LLM size.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joy Mahapatra, Soumyajit Roy, Utpal Garain. 2025-02-17. Factual Inconsistency in Data-to-Text Generation Scales Exponentially with LLM Size: A Statistical Validation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12372

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Breaking the Token Ceiling: Distilling Smaller, Stronger Byte Models

Small models are made more capable through distillation from a larger one that shares their tokenization scheme. However, do distilled byte and token models behave similarly in terms of scaling trends as compute and data increases? To enable this comparison, we introduce two variants to efficiently convert token logits to Byte Logits: 1) approximate: Marginalize-It, and 2) exact: End-Of-Token. We then present the first large scale study of overtraining decoder-only dense transformer models varying two dimensions simultaneously: the tokenization scheme (Tokens, Bytes, Bytes w/ eot) and the training objective (Distillation vs. Cross-Entropy), sweeping layer-parameter-matched models with roughly 1 billion parameters up to 1 trillion bytes of data. Across eight benchmarks spanning three categories: Multiple Choice QA, Language Generation, and Machine Translation, we find that Token-1B models outperform byte models (End-Of-Token-1B and Bytes-1B) in the low-FLOP regime but eventually plateau; byte models start worse yet surpass Token-1B models with more compute, reaching a higher downstream task performance ceiling. Extrapolating the average top-1 error vs. validation BPB scaling laws predicts that, asymptotically, distilled End-Of-Token-1B outperforms distilled Token-1B by up to 4%. They are also far more data efficient, matching the performance of distilled Token-1B using only one-sixth of the training data. Moreover, by operating over a small vocabulary of 256 bytes instead of on the order of 100K tokens, they circumvent the need for top-k truncation during logit dumping, while also reducing logit storage costs to roughly one-fifth. Finally, our downstream performance scaling laws predict that our distilled End-Of-Token-1B models asymptotically surpass the Llama 3.2-1B, Gemma-3-1B-pt, and Gemma 2B models on averaged downstream tasks by up to 6.5%, 8.1%, and 2.1%, respectively.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

A Short Survey of Viewing Large Language Models in Legal Aspect

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed many fields, including natural language processing, computer vision, and reinforcement learning. These models have also made a significant impact in the field of law, where they are being increasingly utilized to automate various legal tasks, such as legal judgement prediction, legal document analysis, and legal document writing. However, the integration of LLMs into the legal field has also raised several legal problems, including privacy concerns, bias, and explainability. In this survey, we explore the integration of LLMs into the field of law. We discuss the various applications of LLMs in legal tasks, examine the legal challenges that arise from their use, and explore the data resources that can be used to specialize LLMs in the legal domain. Finally, we discuss several promising directions and conclude this paper. By doing so, we hope to provide an overview of the current state of LLMs in law and highlight the potential benefits and challenges of their integration.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Customized large language models can outperform Community Notes in correcting misinformation

Addressing misinformation in real-world settings is challenging: content is often multimodal; factuality judgments are nuanced and context-dependent; new events emerge rapidly across domains; corrections must be timely, trustworthy, and politically impartial; and multidimensional, multistakeholder frameworks remain lacking. Crowdsourced fact-checking systems such as Community Notes have gained broad adoption, but timely, scalable coverage remains difficult. We introduce MUSE, which augments large language models (LLMs) with trust-aware retrieval of up-to-date evidence and task-specific multimodal reasoning. Given a piece of content, MUSE identifies whether and which parts may be false or misleading and provides explanations grounded in credible references. We also develop an evaluation framework that assesses expert-rated response quality---including identification accuracy, explanation factuality, and the relevance and credibility of supporting references---as well as user perceptions. Across social media posts spanning modalities, domains, political leanings, misinformation tactics, and popularity, MUSE consistently produces high-quality responses, including for content not previously fact-checked online, and outperforms even highly rated Community Notes by 29%. It also improves participants' recognition of misinformation by 10%. Our work establishes a general methodological and evaluative framework for timely, scalable, and trustworthy correction of misinformation.

cs.CL↗