Is Summary Useful or Not? An Extrinsic Human Evaluation of Text Summaries on Downstream Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15044v1
• Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 11:34:39 GMT
• Title: Is Summary Useful or Not? An Extrinsic Human Evaluation of Text Summaries on Downstream Tasks
• Authors: Xiao Pu, Mingqi Gao, Xiaojun Wan
• Abstract summary: This paper focuses on evaluating the usefulness of text summaries with extrinsic methods. We design three different downstream tasks for extrinsic human evaluation of summaries, i.e., question answering, text classification and text similarity assessment. We find summaries are particularly useful in tasks that rely on an overall judgment of the text, while being less effective for question answering tasks.
• Score: 45.550554287918885
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Research on automated text summarization relies heavily on human and automatic evaluation. While recent work on human evaluation mainly adopted intrinsic evaluation methods, judging the generic quality of text summaries, e.g. informativeness and coherence, our work focuses on evaluating the usefulness of text summaries with extrinsic methods. We carefully design three different downstream tasks for extrinsic human evaluation of summaries, i.e., question answering, text classification and text similarity assessment. We carry out experiments using system rankings and user behavior data to evaluate the performance of different summarization models. We find summaries are particularly useful in tasks that rely on an overall judgment of the text, while being less effective for question answering tasks. The results show that summaries generated by fine-tuned models lead to higher consistency in usefulness across all three tasks, as rankings of fine-tuned summarization systems are close across downstream tasks according to the proposed extrinsic metrics. Summaries generated by models in the zero-shot setting, however, are found to be biased towards the text classification and similarity assessment tasks, due to its general and less detailed summary style. We further evaluate the correlation of 14 intrinsic automatic metrics with human criteria and show that intrinsic automatic metrics perform well in evaluating the usefulness of summaries in the question-answering task, but are less effective in the other two tasks. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on intrinsic automatic metrics in evaluating the performance and usefulness of summaries.

Related papers

• OpinSummEval: Revisiting Automated Evaluation for Opinion Summarization [52.720711541731205]
  We present OpinSummEval, a dataset comprising human judgments and outputs from 14 opinion summarization models. Our findings indicate that metrics based on neural networks generally outperform non-neural ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T13:09:54Z)
• DecompEval: Evaluating Generated Texts as Unsupervised Decomposed Question Answering [95.89707479748161]
  Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation (NLG) tasks face the challenges on generalization ability and interpretability. We propose a metric called DecompEval that formulates NLG evaluation as an instruction-style question answering task. We decompose our devised instruction-style question about the quality of generated texts into the subquestions that measure the quality of each sentence. The subquestions with their answers generated by PLMs are then recomposed as evidence to obtain the evaluation result.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T16:16:51Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• How to Find Strong Summary Coherence Measures? A Toolbox and a Comparative Study for Summary Coherence Measure Evaluation [3.434197496862117]
  We conduct a large-scale investigation of various methods for summary coherence modelling on an even playing field. We introduce two novel analysis measures, intra-system correlation and bias matrices, that help identify biases in coherence measures and provide robustness against system-level confounders. While none of the currently available automatic coherence measures are able to assign reliable coherence scores to system summaries across all evaluation metrics, large-scale language models show promising results, as long as fine-tuning takes into account that they need to generalize across different summary lengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-14T09:42:19Z)
• SummScore: A Comprehensive Evaluation Metric for Summary Quality Based on Cross-Encoder [12.913447457411317]
  SummScore is a comprehensive metric for summary quality evaluation based on CrossEncoder. To improve the comprehensiveness and interpretability, SummScore consists of four fine-grained submodels. Extensive experiments show that SummScore significantly outperforms existing evaluation metrics in the above four dimensions in correlation with human scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-11T06:47:29Z)
• 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)
• Metrics also Disagree in the Low Scoring Range: Revisiting Summarization Evaluation Metrics [20.105119107290488]
  One exemplar work concludes that automatic metrics strongly disagree when ranking high-scoring summaries. We find that their observations stem from the fact that metrics disagree in ranking summaries from any narrow scoring range. Apart from the width of the scoring range of summaries, we analyze three other properties that impact inter-metric agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-08T22:26:06Z)
• 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.