CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10883v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 04:39:20 GMT
• Title: CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization
• Authors: Ziwei Gong, Lin Ai, Harshsaiprasad Deshpande, Alexander Johnson, Emmy Phung, Zehui Wu, Ahmad Emami, Julia Hirschberg,
• Abstract summary: CREAM (Comparison-Based Reference-Free Elo-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization) is a novel framework that addresses the challenges of evaluating meeting summaries. By employing an ELO ranking system, our approach provides a robust mechanism for comparing the quality of different models or prompt configurations.
• Score: 37.44018461165065
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have spurred interest in automatic evaluation methods for summarization, offering a faster, more cost-effective alternative to human evaluation. However, existing methods often fall short when applied to complex tasks like long-context summarizations and dialogue-based meeting summarizations. In this paper, we introduce CREAM (Comparison-Based Reference-Free Elo-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization), a novel framework that addresses the unique challenges of evaluating meeting summaries. CREAM leverages a combination of chain-of-thought reasoning and key facts alignment to assess conciseness and completeness of model-generated summaries without requiring reference. By employing an ELO ranking system, our approach provides a robust mechanism for comparing the quality of different models or prompt configurations.

Related papers

• Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form Text [12.879551933541345]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating human-like conversations. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE are inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T16:01:45Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [69.4501863547618]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios. With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance. Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• 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)
• A LLM-Based Ranking Method for the Evaluation of Automatic Counter-Narrative Generation [14.064465097974836]
  This paper proposes a novel approach to evaluate Counter Narrative (CN) generation using a Large Language Model (LLM) as an evaluator. We show that traditional automatic metrics correlate poorly with human judgements and fail to capture the nuanced relationship between generated CNs and human perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T15:11:33Z)
• 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)
• How to Find Strong Summary Coherence Measures? A Toolbox and a Comparative Study for Summary Coherence Measure Evaluation [3.434197496862117]
  We conduct a large-scale investigation of various methods for summary coherence modelling on an even playing field. We introduce two novel analysis measures, intra-system correlation and bias matrices, that help identify biases in coherence measures and provide robustness against system-level confounders. While none of the currently available automatic coherence measures are able to assign reliable coherence scores to system summaries across all evaluation metrics, large-scale language models show promising results, as long as fine-tuning takes into account that they need to generalize across different summary lengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-14T09:42:19Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
• SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation [169.622515287256]
  We re-evaluate 14 automatic evaluation metrics in a comprehensive and consistent fashion. We benchmark 23 recent summarization models using the aforementioned automatic evaluation metrics. We assemble the largest collection of summaries generated by models trained on the CNN/DailyMail news dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-24T16:25:19Z)

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.