Cross-lingual Cross-temporal Summarization: Dataset, Models, Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12916v3
• Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:38:10 GMT
• Title: Cross-lingual Cross-temporal Summarization: Dataset, Models, Evaluation
• Authors: Ran Zhang, Jihed Ouni, Steffen Eger,
• Abstract summary: Cross-lingual cross-temporal summarization (CLCTS) is a largely unexplored area that has the potential to improve cross-cultural accessibility and understanding. This paper comprehensively addresses the CLCTS task, including dataset creation, modeling, and evaluation.
• Score: 20.675242617417677
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While summarization has been extensively researched in natural language processing (NLP), cross-lingual cross-temporal summarization (CLCTS) is a largely unexplored area that has the potential to improve cross-cultural accessibility and understanding. This paper comprehensively addresses the CLCTS task, including dataset creation, modeling, and evaluation. We (1) build the first CLCTS corpus with 328 instances for hDe-En (extended version with 455 instances) and 289 for hEn-De (extended version with 501 instances), leveraging historical fiction texts and Wikipedia summaries in English and German; (2) examine the effectiveness of popular transformer end-to-end models with different intermediate finetuning tasks; (3) explore the potential of GPT-3.5 as a summarizer; (4) report evaluations from humans, GPT-4, and several recent automatic evaluation metrics. Our results indicate that intermediate task finetuned end-to-end models generate bad to moderate quality summaries while GPT-3.5, as a zero-shot summarizer, provides moderate to good quality outputs. GPT-3.5 also seems very adept at normalizing historical text. To assess data contamination in GPT-3.5, we design an adversarial attack scheme in which we find that GPT-3.5 performs slightly worse for unseen source documents compared to seen documents. Moreover, it sometimes hallucinates when the source sentences are inverted against its prior knowledge with a summarization accuracy of 0.67 for plot omission, 0.71 for entity swap, and 0.53 for plot negation. Overall, our regression results of model performances suggest that longer, older, and more complex source texts (all of which are more characteristic for historical language variants) are harder to summarize for all models, indicating the difficulty of the CLCTS task.

Related papers

• Evaluating Research Quality with Large Language Models: An Analysis of ChatGPT's Effectiveness with Different Settings and Inputs [3.9627148816681284]
  This article assesses which ChatGPT inputs produce better quality score estimates. The optimal input is the article title and abstract, with average ChatGPT scores based on these correlating at 0.67 with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-13T09:19:21Z)
• Information-Theoretic Distillation for Reference-less Summarization [67.51150817011617]
  We present a novel framework to distill a powerful summarizer based on the information-theoretic objective for summarization. We start off from Pythia-2.8B as the teacher model, which is not yet capable of summarization. We arrive at a compact but powerful summarizer with only 568M parameters that performs competitively against ChatGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T17:42:08Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• Large language models for aspect-based sentiment analysis [0.0]
  We assess the performance of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 in zero shot, few shot and fine-tuned settings. Fine-tuned GPT-3.5 achieves a state-of-the-art F1 score of 83.8 on the joint aspect term extraction and polarity classification task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T10:03:21Z)
• mFACE: Multilingual Summarization with Factual Consistency Evaluation [79.60172087719356]
  Abstractive summarization has enjoyed renewed interest in recent years, thanks to pre-trained language models and the availability of large-scale datasets. Despite promising results, current models still suffer from generating factually inconsistent summaries. We leverage factual consistency evaluation models to improve multilingual summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T19:52:41Z)
• Prompted Opinion Summarization with GPT-3.5 [115.95460650578678]
  We show that GPT-3.5 models achieve very strong performance in human evaluation. We argue that standard evaluation metrics do not reflect this, and introduce three new metrics targeting faithfulness, factuality, and genericity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-29T04:06:21Z)
• News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3 [73.48220043216087]
  We study how GPT-3 compares against fine-tuned models trained on large summarization datasets. We show that not only do humans overwhelmingly prefer GPT-3 summaries, prompted using only a task description, but these also do not suffer from common dataset-specific issues such as poor factuality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-26T01:04:52Z)
• SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation [169.622515287256]
  We re-evaluate 14 automatic evaluation metrics in a comprehensive and consistent fashion. We benchmark 23 recent summarization models using the aforementioned automatic evaluation metrics. We assemble the largest collection of summaries generated by models trained on the CNN/DailyMail news dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-24T16:25:19Z)

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.