A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00747v1
• Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 16:12:37 GMT
• Title: A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization
• Authors: Huyen Nguyen, Haihua Chen, Lavanya Pobbathi, Junhua Ding,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.5512295869673147
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating text summarization has been a challenging task in natural language processing (NLP). Automatic metrics which heavily rely on reference summaries are not suitable in many situations, while human evaluation is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a novel method based on large language models (LLMs) for evaluating text summarization. We also conducts a comparative study on eight automatic metrics, human evaluation, and our proposed LLM-based method. Seven different types of state-of-the-art (SOTA) summarization models were evaluated. We perform extensive experiments and analysis on datasets with patent documents. 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. Based on the empirical comparison, we propose a LLM-powered framework for automatically evaluating and improving text summarization, which is beneficial and could attract wide attention among the community.

Related papers

• CovScore: Evaluation of Multi-Document Abstractive Title Set Generation [16.516381474175986]
  CovScore is an automatic reference-less methodology for evaluating thematic title sets. We propose a novel methodology that decomposes quality into five main metrics along different aspects of evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T16:14:15Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• MATEval: A Multi-Agent Discussion Framework for Advancing Open-Ended Text Evaluation [22.19073789961769]
  generative Large Language Models (LLMs) have been remarkable, however, the quality of the text generated by these models often reveals persistent issues. We propose the MATEval: A "Multi-Agent Text Evaluation framework" Our framework incorporates self-reflection and Chain-of-Thought strategies, along with feedback mechanisms, to enhance the depth and breadth of the evaluation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T10:41:47Z)
• SemScore: Automated Evaluation of Instruction-Tuned LLMs based on Semantic Textual Similarity [3.3162484539136416]
  We propose a simple but remarkably effective evaluation metric called SemScore. We compare model outputs to gold target responses using semantic textual similarity (STS) We find that our proposed SemScore metric outperforms all other, in many cases more complex, evaluation metrics in terms of correlation to human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T14:52:50Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• ALLURE: Auditing and Improving LLM-based Evaluation of Text using Iterative In-Context-Learning [7.457517083017178]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used for evaluation of text generated by humans and AI alike. Despite their utility, LLMs exhibit distinct failure modes, necessitating a thorough audit and improvement of their text evaluation capabilities. Here we introduce ALLURE, a systematic approach to Auditing Large Language Models Understanding and Reasoning Errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-24T17:15:58Z)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• 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)

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.