CASPR: Automated Evaluation Metric for Contrastive Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15565v2
• Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 21:39:10 GMT
• Title: CASPR: Automated Evaluation Metric for Contrastive Summarization
• Authors: Nirupan Ananthamurugan, Dat Duong, Philip George, Ankita Gupta, Sandeep Tata, Beliz Gunel,
• Abstract summary: We propose an automated evaluation metric CASPR to better measure contrast between a pair of summaries. Our results on a prior dataset CoCoTRIP demonstrate that CASPR can more reliably capture the contrastiveness of the summary pairs compared to the baselines.
• Score: 4.310460539747285
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Summarizing comparative opinions about entities (e.g., hotels, phones) from a set of source reviews, often referred to as contrastive summarization, can considerably aid users in decision making. However, reliably measuring the contrastiveness of the output summaries without relying on human evaluations remains an open problem. Prior work has proposed token-overlap based metrics, Distinctiveness Score, to measure contrast which does not take into account the sensitivity to meaning-preserving lexical variations. In this work, we propose an automated evaluation metric CASPR to better measure contrast between a pair of summaries. Our metric is based on a simple and light-weight method that leverages natural language inference (NLI) task to measure contrast by segmenting reviews into single-claim sentences and carefully aggregating NLI scores between them to come up with a summary-level score. We compare CASPR with Distinctiveness Score and a simple yet powerful baseline based on BERTScore. Our results on a prior dataset CoCoTRIP demonstrate that CASPR can more reliably capture the contrastiveness of the summary pairs compared to the baselines.

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)
• The Comparative Trap: Pairwise Comparisons Amplifies Biased Preferences of LLM Evaluators [31.520403357740317]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators for natural language generation tasks. LLMs display biased preferences, such as favoring verbosity and authoritative tones. We introduce PRePair, which integrates pointwise reasoning within a pairwise framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T06:43:04Z)
• DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
  This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts. We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z)
• 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)
• SWING: Balancing Coverage and Faithfulness for Dialogue Summarization [67.76393867114923]
  We propose to utilize natural language inference (NLI) models to improve coverage while avoiding factual inconsistencies. We use NLI to compute fine-grained training signals to encourage the model to generate content in the reference summaries that have not been covered. Experiments on the DialogSum and SAMSum datasets confirm the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-25T09:33:11Z)
• Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Large Language Models Through News Summarization [97.04685401448499]
  We propose a new benchmark called FIB(Factual Inconsistency Benchmark) that focuses on the task of summarization. For factually consistent summaries, we use human-written reference summaries that we manually verify as factually consistent. For factually inconsistent summaries, we generate summaries from a suite of summarization models that we have manually annotated as factually inconsistent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T18:50:34Z)
• Comparing Methods for Extractive Summarization of Call Centre Dialogue [77.34726150561087]
  We experimentally compare several such methods by using them to produce summaries of calls, and evaluating these summaries objectively. We found that TopicSum and Lead-N outperform the other summarisation methods, whilst BERTSum received comparatively lower scores in both subjective and objective evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-06T13:16:02Z)
• 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)

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.