What's Wrong? Refining Meeting Summaries with LLM Feedback

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11919v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:10:16 GMT
• Title: What's Wrong? Refining Meeting Summaries with LLM Feedback
• Authors: Frederic Kirstein, Terry Ruas, Bela Gipp,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a multi-LLM correction approach for meeting summarization using a two-phase process that mimics the human review process. We release QMSum Mistake, a dataset of 200 automatically generated meeting summaries annotated by humans on nine error types. We transform identified mistakes into actionable feedback to improve the quality of a given summary measured by relevance, informativeness, conciseness, and coherence.
• Score: 6.532478490187084
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Meeting summarization has become a critical task since digital encounters have become a common practice. Large language models (LLMs) show great potential in summarization, offering enhanced coherence and context understanding compared to traditional methods. However, they still struggle to maintain relevance and avoid hallucination. We introduce a multi-LLM correction approach for meeting summarization using a two-phase process that mimics the human review process: mistake identification and summary refinement. We release QMSum Mistake, a dataset of 200 automatically generated meeting summaries annotated by humans on nine error types, including structural, omission, and irrelevance errors. Our experiments show that these errors can be identified with high accuracy by an LLM. We transform identified mistakes into actionable feedback to improve the quality of a given summary measured by relevance, informativeness, conciseness, and coherence. This post-hoc refinement effectively improves summary quality by leveraging multiple LLMs to validate output quality. Our multi-LLM approach for meeting summarization shows potential for similar complex text generation tasks requiring robustness, action planning, and discussion towards a goal.

Related papers

• Learning to Refine with Fine-Grained Natural Language Feedback [81.70313509881315]
  We propose looking at refinement with feedback as a composition of three distinct LLM competencies. A key property of the proposed Detect, Critique, Refine ("DCR") method is that the step 2 critique model can give fine-grained feedback about errors. We show that models of different capabilities benefit from refining with DCR on the task of improving factual consistency of document grounded summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:15:01Z)
• Detecting Errors through Ensembling Prompts (DEEP): An End-to-End LLM Framework for Detecting Factual Errors [11.07539342949602]
  We propose an end-to-end framework for detecting factual errors in text summarization. Our framework uses a diverse set of LLM prompts to identify factual inconsistencies. We calibrate the ensembled models to produce empirically accurate probabilities that a text is factually consistent or free of hallucination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T18:59:37Z)
• Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented LMs with a Two-stage Consistency Learning Compressor [4.35807211471107]
  This work proposes a novel two-stage consistency learning approach for retrieved information compression in retrieval-augmented language models. The proposed method is empirically validated across multiple datasets, demonstrating notable enhancements in precision and efficiency for question-answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T12:43:23Z)
• What's under the hood: Investigating Automatic Metrics on Meeting Summarization [7.234196390284036]
  Meeting summarization has become a critical task considering the increase in online interactions. Current default-used metrics struggle to capture observable errors, showing weak to mid-correlations. Only a subset reacts accurately to specific errors, while most correlations show either unresponsiveness or failure to reflect the error's impact on summary quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T07:15:07Z)
• Exploring the Factual Consistency in Dialogue Comprehension of Large Language Models [51.75805497456226]
  This work focuses on the factual consistency issue with the help of the dialogue summarization task. Our evaluation shows that, on average, 26.8% of the summaries generated by LLMs contain factual inconsistency. To stimulate and enhance the dialogue comprehension ability of LLMs, we propose a fine-tuning paradigm with auto-constructed multi-task data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T09:32:12Z)
• Evaluating Factual Consistency of Summaries with Large Language Models [24.416837319515896]
  We explore evaluating factual consistency of summaries by directly prompting large language models (LLMs) Our experiments demonstrate that prompting LLMs is able to outperform the previous best factuality systems in all settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T13:48:32Z)
• Correcting Diverse Factual Errors in Abstractive Summarization via Post-Editing and Language Model Infilling [56.70682379371534]
  We show that our approach vastly outperforms prior methods in correcting erroneous summaries. Our model -- FactEdit -- improves factuality scores by over 11 points on CNN/DM and over 31 points on XSum.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T07:16:19Z)
• SNaC: Coherence Error Detection for Narrative Summarization [73.48220043216087]
  We introduce SNaC, a narrative coherence evaluation framework rooted in fine-grained annotations for long summaries. We develop a taxonomy of coherence errors in generated narrative summaries and collect span-level annotations for 6.6k sentences across 150 book and movie screenplay summaries. Our work provides the first characterization of coherence errors generated by state-of-the-art summarization models and a protocol for eliciting coherence judgments from crowd annotators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-19T16:01:47Z)
• CONFIT: Toward Faithful Dialogue Summarization with Linguistically-Informed Contrastive Fine-tuning [5.389540975316299]
  Factual inconsistencies in generated summaries severely limit the practical applications of abstractive dialogue summarization. We provide a typology of factual errors with annotation data to highlight the types of errors and move away from a binary understanding of factuality. We propose a training strategy that improves the factual consistency and overall quality of summaries via a novel contrastive fine-tuning, called ConFiT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T09:08:40Z)
• Masked Language Modeling and the Distributional Hypothesis: Order Word Matters Pre-training for Little [74.49773960145681]
  A possible explanation for the impressive performance of masked language model (MLM)-training is that such models have learned to represent the syntactic structures prevalent in NLP pipelines. In this paper, we propose a different explanation: pre-trains succeed on downstream tasks almost entirely due to their ability to model higher-order word co-occurrence statistics. Our results show that purely distributional information largely explains the success of pre-training, and underscore the importance of curating challenging evaluation datasets that require deeper linguistic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T06:30:36Z)
• Multi-Fact Correction in Abstractive Text Summarization [98.27031108197944]
  Span-Fact is a suite of two factual correction models that leverages knowledge learned from question answering models to make corrections in system-generated summaries via span selection. Our models employ single or multi-masking strategies to either iteratively or auto-regressively replace entities in order to ensure semantic consistency w.r.t. the source text. Experiments show that our models significantly boost the factual consistency of system-generated summaries without sacrificing summary quality in terms of both automatic metrics and human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T02:51:02Z)

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.