CADS: A Systematic Literature Review on the Challenges of Abstractive Dialogue Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07494v2
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:47:09 GMT
• Title: CADS: A Systematic Literature Review on the Challenges of Abstractive Dialogue Summarization
• Authors: Frederic Kirstein, Jan Philip Wahle, Bela Gipp, Terry Ruas,
• Abstract summary: This article summarizes the research on Transformer-based abstractive summarization for English dialogues. We cover the main challenges present in dialog summarization (i.e., language, structure, comprehension, speaker, salience, and factuality) We find that while some challenges, like language, have seen considerable progress, others, such as comprehension, factuality, and salience, remain difficult and hold significant research opportunities.
• Score: 7.234196390284036
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Abstractive dialogue summarization is the task of distilling conversations into informative and concise summaries. Although reviews have been conducted on this topic, there is a lack of comprehensive work detailing the challenges of dialogue summarization, unifying the differing understanding of the task, and aligning proposed techniques, datasets, and evaluation metrics with the challenges. This article summarizes the research on Transformer-based abstractive summarization for English dialogues by systematically reviewing 1262 unique research papers published between 2019 and 2024, relying on the Semantic Scholar and DBLP databases. We cover the main challenges present in dialog summarization (i.e., language, structure, comprehension, speaker, salience, and factuality) and link them to corresponding techniques such as graph-based approaches, additional training tasks, and planning strategies, which typically overly rely on BART-based encoder-decoder models. We find that while some challenges, like language, have seen considerable progress, mainly due to training methods, others, such as comprehension, factuality, and salience, remain difficult and hold significant research opportunities. We investigate how these approaches are typically assessed, covering the datasets for the subdomains of dialogue (e.g., meeting, medical), the established automatic metrics and human evaluation approaches for assessing scores and annotator agreement. We observe that only a few datasets span across all subdomains. The ROUGE metric is the most used, while human evaluation is frequently reported without sufficient detail on inner-annotator agreement and annotation guidelines. Additionally, we discuss the possible implications of the recently explored large language models and conclude that despite a potential shift in relevance and difficulty, our described challenge taxonomy remains relevant.

Related papers

• Increasing faithfulness in human-human dialog summarization with Spoken Language Understanding tasks [0.0]
  We propose an exploration of how incorporating task-related information can enhance the summarization process. Results show that integrating models with task-related information improves summary accuracy, even with varying word error rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T08:15:35Z)
• Text Generation: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Evaluation, and Challenges [7.140449861888235]
  This review categorizes works in text generation into five main tasks. For each task, we review their relevant characteristics, sub-tasks, and specific challenges. Our investigation shows nine prominent challenges common to all tasks and sub-tasks in recent text generation publications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T14:38:11Z)
• FREDSum: A Dialogue Summarization Corpus for French Political Debates [26.76383031532945]
  We present a dataset of French political debates for the purpose of enhancing resources for multi-lingual dialogue summarization. Our dataset consists of manually transcribed and annotated political debates, covering a range of topics and perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T05:42:04Z)
• SOUL: Towards Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language [96.74878032417054]
  We propose a new task called Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language (SOUL) SOUL aims to evaluate sentiment understanding through two subtasks: Review (RC) and Justification Generation (JG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:48:48Z)
• SuperDialseg: A Large-scale Dataset for Supervised Dialogue Segmentation [55.82577086422923]
  We provide a feasible definition of dialogue segmentation points with the help of document-grounded dialogues. We release a large-scale supervised dataset called SuperDialseg, containing 9,478 dialogues. We also provide a benchmark including 18 models across five categories for the dialogue segmentation task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T06:08:01Z)
• Taxonomy of Abstractive Dialogue Summarization: Scenarios, Approaches and Future Directions [14.85592662663867]
  This survey provides a comprehensive investigation on existing work for abstractive dialogue summarization from scenarios. It categorizes the task into two broad categories according to the type of input dialogues, i.e., open-domain and task-oriented. It presents a taxonomy of existing techniques in three directions, namely, injecting dialogue features, designing auxiliary training tasks and using additional data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-18T14:33:03Z)
• Topic-Aware Contrastive Learning for Abstractive Dialogue Summarization [41.75442239197745]
  This work proposes two topic-aware contrastive learning objectives, namely coherence detection and sub-summary generation objectives. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed simple method significantly outperforms strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-10T17:03:25Z)
• ConvoSumm: Conversation Summarization Benchmark and Improved Abstractive Summarization with Argument Mining [61.82562838486632]
  We crowdsource four new datasets on diverse online conversation forms of news comments, discussion forums, community question answering forums, and email threads. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on our datasets and analyze characteristics associated with the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T22:17:13Z)
• Unsupervised Summarization for Chat Logs with Topic-Oriented Ranking and Context-Aware Auto-Encoders [59.038157066874255]
  We propose a novel framework called RankAE to perform chat summarization without employing manually labeled data. RankAE consists of a topic-oriented ranking strategy that selects topic utterances according to centrality and diversity simultaneously. A denoising auto-encoder is designed to generate succinct but context-informative summaries based on the selected utterances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-14T07:31:17Z)
• Multi-View Sequence-to-Sequence Models with Conversational Structure for Abstractive Dialogue Summarization [72.54873655114844]
  Text summarization is one of the most challenging and interesting problems in NLP. This work proposes a multi-view sequence-to-sequence model by first extracting conversational structures of unstructured daily chats from different views to represent conversations. Experiments on a large-scale dialogue summarization corpus demonstrated that our methods significantly outperformed previous state-of-the-art models via both automatic evaluations and human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-04T20:12:44Z)
• Detecting and Classifying Malevolent Dialogue Responses: Taxonomy, Data and Methodology [68.8836704199096]
  Corpus-based conversational interfaces are able to generate more diverse and natural responses than template-based or retrieval-based agents. With their increased generative capacity of corpusbased conversational agents comes the need to classify and filter out malevolent responses. Previous studies on the topic of recognizing and classifying inappropriate content are mostly focused on a certain category of malevolence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-21T22:43:27Z)

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.