Assessment of Transformer-Based Encoder-Decoder Model for Human-Like Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16842v1
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:25:04 GMT
• Title: Assessment of Transformer-Based Encoder-Decoder Model for Human-Like Summarization
• Authors: Sindhu Nair, Y. S. Rao, Radha Shankarmani,
• Abstract summary: This work leverages transformer-based BART model for human-like summarization. On training and fine-tuning the encoder-decoder model, it is tested with diverse sample articles. The finetuned model performance is compared with the baseline pretrained model. Empirical results on BBC News articles highlight that the gold standard summaries written by humans are more factually consistent by 17%.
• Score: 0.05852077003870416
• License:
• Abstract: In recent times, extracting valuable information from large text is making significant progress. Especially in the current era of social media, people expect quick bites of information. Automatic text summarization seeks to tackle this by slimming large texts down into more manageable summaries. This important research area can aid in decision-making by digging out salient content from large text. With the progress in deep learning models, significant work in language models has emerged. The encoder-decoder framework in deep learning has become the central approach for automatic text summarization. This work leverages transformer-based BART model for human-like summarization which is an open-ended problem with many challenges. On training and fine-tuning the encoder-decoder model, it is tested with diverse sample articles and the quality of summaries of diverse samples is assessed based on human evaluation parameters. Further, the finetuned model performance is compared with the baseline pretrained model based on evaluation metrics like ROUGE score and BERTScore. Additionally, domain adaptation of the model is required for improved performance of abstractive summarization of dialogues between interlocutors. On investigating, the above popular evaluation metrics are found to be insensitive to factual errors. Further investigation of the summaries generated by finetuned model is done using the contemporary evaluation metrics of factual consistency like WeCheck and SummaC. Empirical results on BBC News articles highlight that the gold standard summaries written by humans are more factually consistent by 17% than the abstractive summaries generated by finetuned model.

Related papers

• Long-Span Question-Answering: Automatic Question Generation and QA-System Ranking via Side-by-Side Evaluation [65.16137964758612]
  We explore the use of long-context capabilities in large language models to create synthetic reading comprehension data from entire books. Our objective is to test the capabilities of LLMs to analyze, understand, and reason over problems that require a detailed comprehension of long spans of text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T20:15:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Leveraging Pretrained Models for Automatic Summarization of Doctor-Patient Conversations [9.184616102949228]
  We show that fluent and adequate summaries can be generated with limited training data by fine-tuning BART. Using a carefully chosen fine-tuning dataset, this method is shown to be effective at handling longer conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T20:18:59Z)
• Transformer Models for Text Coherence Assessment [14.132559978971377]
  Coherence is an important aspect of text quality and is crucial for ensuring its readability. Previous work has leveraged entity-based methods, syntactic patterns, discourse relations, and more recently traditional deep learning architectures for text coherence assessment. We propose four different Transformer-based architectures for the task: vanilla Transformer, hierarchical Transformer, multi-task learning-based model, and a model with fact-based input representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-05T22:27:17Z)
• 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)
• On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization [17.261247316769484]
  We analyzed limitations of neural text generation models for abstractive document summarization. We found that these models are highly prone to hallucinate content that is unfaithful to the input document. We show that textual entailment measures better correlate with faithfulness than standard metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-02T00:09:16Z)
• Few-Shot Learning for Opinion Summarization [117.70510762845338]
  Opinion summarization is the automatic creation of text reflecting subjective information expressed in multiple documents. In this work, we show that even a handful of summaries is sufficient to bootstrap generation of the summary text. Our approach substantially outperforms previous extractive and abstractive methods in automatic and human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:37:38Z)
• Unsupervised Opinion Summarization with Noising and Denoising [85.49169453434554]
  We create a synthetic dataset from a corpus of user reviews by sampling a review, pretending it is a summary, and generating noisy versions thereof. At test time, the model accepts genuine reviews and generates a summary containing salient opinions, treating those that do not reach consensus as noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T16:54:57Z)
• Learning by Semantic Similarity Makes Abstractive Summarization Better [13.324006587838522]
  We compare the generated summaries from recent LM, BART, and the reference summaries from a benchmark dataset, CNN/DM. Interestingly, model-generated summaries receive higher scores relative to reference summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-18T17:59:02Z)

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.