LongDocFACTScore: Evaluating the Factuality of Long Document Abstractive Summarisation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12455v2
• Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 08:26:17 GMT
• Title: LongDocFACTScore: Evaluating the Factuality of Long Document Abstractive Summarisation
• Authors: Jennifer A Bishop, Qianqian Xie, Sophia Ananiadou,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the efficacy of automatic metrics for assessing the factual consistency of long document text summarisation. We propose a new evaluation framework, LongDocFACTScore, which is suitable for evaluating long document summarisation data sets.
• Score: 28.438103177230477
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Maintaining factual consistency is a critical issue in abstractive text summarisation, however, it cannot be assessed by traditional automatic metrics used for evaluating text summarisation, such as ROUGE scoring. Recent efforts have been devoted to developing improved metrics for measuring factual consistency using pre-trained language models, but these metrics have restrictive token limits, and are therefore not suitable for evaluating long document text summarisation. Moreover, there is limited research and resources available for evaluating whether existing automatic evaluation metrics are fit for purpose when applied in long document settings. In this work, we evaluate the efficacy of automatic metrics for assessing the factual consistency of long document text summarisation. We create a human-annotated data set for evaluating automatic factuality metrics, LongSciVerify, which contains fine-grained factual consistency annotations for long document summaries from the scientific domain. We also propose a new evaluation framework, LongDocFACTScore, which is suitable for evaluating long document summarisation. This framework allows metrics to be efficiently extended to any length document and outperforms existing state-of-the-art metrics in its ability to correlate with human measures of factuality when used to evaluate long document summarisation data sets. We make our code and LongSciVerify data set publicly available: https://github.com/jbshp/LongDocFACTScore.

Related papers

• 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)
• Unlocking Structure Measuring: Introducing PDD, an Automatic Metric for Positional Discourse Coherence [39.065349875944634]
  We present a novel metric designed to quantify the discourse divergence between two long-form articles. Our metric aligns more closely with human preferences and GPT-4 coherence evaluation, outperforming existing evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:23:39Z)
• Evaluating Code Summarization Techniques: A New Metric and an Empirical Characterization [16.127739014966487]
  We investigate the complementarity of different types of metrics in capturing the quality of a generated summary. We present a new metric based on contrastive learning to capture said aspect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T13:12:39Z)
• Evaluating and Improving Factuality in Multimodal Abstractive Summarization [91.46015013816083]
  We propose CLIPBERTScore to leverage the robustness and strong factuality detection performance between image-summary and document-summary. We show that this simple combination of two metrics in the zero-shot achieves higher correlations than existing factuality metrics for document summarization. Our analysis demonstrates the robustness and high correlation of CLIPBERTScore and its components on four factuality metric-evaluation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-04T16:50:40Z)
• How Far are We from Robust Long Abstractive Summarization? [39.34743996451813]
  We evaluate long document abstractive summarization systems (i.e., models and metrics) with the aim of implementing them to generate reliable summaries. For long document evaluation metrics, human evaluation results show that ROUGE remains the best at evaluating the relevancy of a summary. We release our annotated long document dataset with the hope that it can contribute to the development of metrics across a broader range of summarization settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-30T03:19:50Z)
• On the Limitations of Reference-Free Evaluations of Generated Text [64.81682222169113]
  We show that reference-free metrics are inherently biased and limited in their ability to evaluate generated text. We argue that they should not be used to measure progress on tasks like machine translation or summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T22:12:06Z)
• SMART: Sentences as Basic Units for Text Evaluation [48.5999587529085]
  In this paper, we introduce a new metric called SMART to mitigate such limitations. We treat sentences as basic units of matching instead of tokens, and use a sentence matching function to soft-match candidate and reference sentences. Our results show that system-level correlations of our proposed metric with a model-based matching function outperforms all competing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-01T17:58:05Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)
• Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarization [77.4601291738445]
  We re-evaluate the evaluation method for text summarization using top-scoring system outputs. We find that conclusions about evaluation metrics on older datasets do not necessarily hold on modern datasets and systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-14T13:58:53Z)

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.