Evaluating Text Summaries Generated by Large Language Models Using OpenAI's GPT

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04053v1
• Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 06:52:34 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Text Summaries Generated by Large Language Models Using OpenAI's GPT
• Authors: Hassan Shakil, Atqiya Munawara Mahi, Phuoc Nguyen, Zeydy Ortiz, Mamoun T. Mardini,
• Abstract summary: This research examines the effectiveness of OpenAI's GPT models as independent evaluators of text summaries generated by six transformer-based models. We evaluated these summaries based on essential properties of high-quality summary - conciseness, relevance, coherence, and readability - using traditional metrics such as ROUGE and Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) Our analysis revealed significant correlations between GPT and traditional metrics, particularly in assessing relevance and coherence.
• Score: 0.6740832660968358
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This research examines the effectiveness of OpenAI's GPT models as independent evaluators of text summaries generated by six transformer-based models from Hugging Face: DistilBART, BERT, ProphetNet, T5, BART, and PEGASUS. We evaluated these summaries based on essential properties of high-quality summary - conciseness, relevance, coherence, and readability - using traditional metrics such as ROUGE and Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA). Uniquely, we also employed GPT not as a summarizer but as an evaluator, allowing it to independently assess summary quality without predefined metrics. Our analysis revealed significant correlations between GPT evaluations and traditional metrics, particularly in assessing relevance and coherence. The results demonstrate GPT's potential as a robust tool for evaluating text summaries, offering insights that complement established metrics and providing a basis for comparative analysis of transformer-based models in natural language processing tasks.

Related papers

• Consistency Evaluation of News Article Summaries Generated by Large (and Small) Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in generating fluent abstractive summaries but they can produce hallucinated details not grounded in the source text. This paper embarks on an exploration of text summarization with a diverse set of techniques, including TextRank, BART, Mistral-7B-Instruct, and OpenAI GPT-3.5-Turbo. We find that all summarization models produce consistent summaries when tested on the XL-Sum dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T01:58:17Z)
• Learning to Align Multi-Faceted Evaluation: A Unified and Robust Framework [61.38174427966444]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios. Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models. We propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:45Z)
• A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization [0.5512295869673147]
  This paper proposes a novel method based on large language models (LLMs) for evaluating text summarization. Our results show that LLMs evaluation aligns closely with human evaluation, while widely-used automatic metrics such as ROUGE-2, BERTScore, and SummaC do not and also lack consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T16:12:37Z)
• Exploring the Correlation between Human and Machine Evaluation of Simultaneous Speech Translation [0.9576327614980397]
  This study aims to assess the reliability of automatic metrics in evaluating simultaneous interpretations by analyzing their correlation with human evaluations. As a benchmark we use human assessments performed by language experts, and evaluate how well sentence embeddings and Large Language Models correlate with them. The results suggest GPT models, particularly GPT-3.5 with direct prompting, demonstrate the strongest correlation with human judgment in terms of semantic similarity between source and target texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T14:47:19Z)
• 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)
• Can GPT models Follow Human Summarization Guidelines? A Study for Targeted Communication Goals [3.875021622948646]
  This study investigates the ability of GPT models to generate dialogue summaries that adhere to human guidelines. Our findings reveal a preference for GPT-generated summaries over those from task-specific pre-trained models and reference summaries. The discrepancy between ROUGE, BERTScore, and human evaluation underscores the need for more reliable automatic evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T17:39:07Z)
• Exploring the Power of Topic Modeling Techniques in Analyzing Customer Reviews: A Comparative Analysis [0.0]
  Machine learning and natural language processing algorithms have been deployed to analyze the vast amount of textual data available online. In this study, we examine and compare five frequently used topic modeling methods specifically applied to customer reviews. Our findings reveal that BERTopic consistently yield more meaningful extracted topics and achieve favorable results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-19T08:18:04Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Text Summarization with In-Context Learning [79.02280189976562]
  In this paper, we study the efficacy of large language models as multi-dimensional evaluators using in-context learning. Our experiments show that in-context learning-based evaluators are competitive with learned evaluation frameworks for the task of text summarization. We then analyze the effects of factors such as the selection and number of in-context examples on performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T23:27:49Z)
• Towards Interpretable Summary Evaluation via Allocation of Contextual Embeddings to Reference Text Topics [1.5749416770494706]
  The multifaceted interpretable summary evaluation method (MISEM) is based on allocation of a summary's contextual token embeddings to semantic topics identified in the reference text. MISEM achieves a promising.404 Pearson correlation with human judgment on the TAC'08 dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T17:09:08Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Towards Question-Answering as an Automatic Metric for Evaluating the Content Quality of a Summary [65.37544133256499]
  We propose a metric to evaluate the content quality of a summary using question-answering (QA) We demonstrate the experimental benefits of QA-based metrics through an analysis of our proposed metric, QAEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-01T15:33:09Z)

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.