Estimation of Summary-to-Text Inconsistency by Mismatched Embeddings

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.05156v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 01:58:21 GMT
• Title: Estimation of Summary-to-Text Inconsistency by Mismatched Embeddings
• Authors: Oleg Vasilyev, John Bohannon
• Abstract summary: We propose a new reference-free summary quality evaluation measure, with emphasis on the faithfulness. The proposed ESTIME, Estimator of Summary-to-Text Inconsistency by Mismatched Embeddings, correlates with expert scores in summary-level SummEval dataset stronger than other common evaluation measures.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We propose a new reference-free summary quality evaluation measure, with emphasis on the faithfulness. The measure is designed to find and count all possible minute inconsistencies of the summary with respect to the source document. The proposed ESTIME, Estimator of Summary-to-Text Inconsistency by Mismatched Embeddings, correlates with expert scores in summary-level SummEval dataset stronger than other common evaluation measures not only in Consistency but also in Fluency. We also introduce a method of generating subtle factual errors in human summaries. We show that ESTIME is more sensitive to subtle errors than other common evaluation measures.

Related papers

• Using Similarity to Evaluate Factual Consistency in Summaries [2.7595794227140056]
  Abstractive summarisers generate fluent summaries, but the factuality of the generated text is not guaranteed. We propose a new zero-shot factuality evaluation metric, Sentence-BERTScore (SBERTScore), which compares sentences between the summary and the source document. Our experiments indicate that each technique has different strengths, with SBERTScore particularly effective in identifying correct summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T15:02:38Z)
• STORYSUMM: Evaluating Faithfulness in Story Summarization [31.94902013480574]
  We introduce a new dataset, STORYSUMM, comprising short stories with localized faithfulness labels and error explanations. This benchmark is for evaluation methods, testing whether a given method can detect challenging inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T02:06:30Z)
• FENICE: Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction [85.26780391682894]
  We propose Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction (FENICE) FENICE leverages an NLI-based alignment between information in the source document and a set of atomic facts, referred to as claims, extracted from the summary. Our metric sets a new state of the art on AGGREFACT, the de-facto benchmark for factuality evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T17:57:18Z)
• AMRFact: Enhancing Summarization Factuality Evaluation with AMR-Driven Negative Samples Generation [57.8363998797433]
  We propose AMRFact, a framework that generates perturbed summaries using Abstract Meaning Representations (AMRs) Our approach parses factually consistent summaries into AMR graphs and injects controlled factual inconsistencies to create negative examples, allowing for coherent factually inconsistent summaries to be generated with high error-type coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T02:56:29Z)
• Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarization [56.94741578760294]
  We propose the task of fine-grained inconsistency detection, the goal of which is to predict the fine-grained types of factual errors in a summary. Motivated by how humans inspect factual inconsistency in summaries, we propose an interpretable fine-grained inconsistency detection model, FineGrainFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T22:11:47Z)
• Factual Consistency Evaluation for Text Summarization via Counterfactual Estimation [42.63902468258758]
  We propose a novel metric to evaluate the factual consistency in text summarization via counterfactual estimation. We conduct a series of experiments on three public abstractive text summarization datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-30T11:48:41Z)
• A Training-free and Reference-free Summarization Evaluation Metric via Centrality-weighted Relevance and Self-referenced Redundancy [60.419107377879925]
  We propose a training-free and reference-free summarization evaluation metric. Our metric consists of a centrality-weighted relevance score and a self-referenced redundancy score. Our methods can significantly outperform existing methods on both multi-document and single-document summarization evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-26T05:11:27Z)
• Understanding the Extent to which Summarization Evaluation Metrics Measure the Information Quality of Summaries [74.28810048824519]
  We analyze the token alignments used by ROUGE and BERTScore to compare summaries. We argue that their scores largely cannot be interpreted as measuring information overlap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T15:55:15Z)
• Unsupervised Reference-Free Summary Quality Evaluation via Contrastive Learning [66.30909748400023]
  We propose to evaluate the summary qualities without reference summaries by unsupervised contrastive learning. Specifically, we design a new metric which covers both linguistic qualities and semantic informativeness based on BERT. Experiments on Newsroom and CNN/Daily Mail demonstrate that our new evaluation method outperforms other metrics even without reference summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-05T05:04:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.