Agent-as-Judge for Factual Summarization of Long Narratives
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09993v1
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:23:06 GMT
- Title: Agent-as-Judge for Factual Summarization of Long Narratives
- Authors: Yeonseok Jeong, Minsoo Kim, Seung-won Hwang, Byung-Hak Kim,
- Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated near-human performance in summarization tasks based on traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore.
Recent advances, such as LLM-as-a-Judge, address the limitations of metrics based on lexical similarity but still exhibit factual inconsistencies.
In this work, we introduce NarrativeFactScore, a novel "Agent-as-a-Judge" framework for evaluating and refining summaries.
- Score: 20.3296043006896
- License:
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated near-human performance in summarization tasks based on traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore. However, these metrics do not adequately capture critical aspects of summarization quality, such as factual accuracy, particularly for long narratives (>100K tokens). Recent advances, such as LLM-as-a-Judge, address the limitations of metrics based on lexical similarity but still exhibit factual inconsistencies, especially in understanding character relationships and states. In this work, we introduce NarrativeFactScore, a novel "Agent-as-a-Judge" framework for evaluating and refining summaries. By leveraging a Character Knowledge Graph (CKG) extracted from input and generated summaries, NarrativeFactScore assesses the factual consistency and provides actionable guidance for refinement, such as identifying missing or erroneous facts. We demonstrate the effectiveness of NarrativeFactScore through a detailed workflow illustration and extensive validation on widely adopted benchmarks, achieving superior performance compared to competitive methods. Our results highlight the potential of agent-driven evaluation systems to improve the factual reliability of LLM-generated summaries.
Related papers
- Using Similarity to Evaluate Factual Consistency in Summaries [2.7595794227140056]
Abstractive summarisers generate fluent summaries, but the factuality of the generated text is not guaranteed.
We propose a new zero-shot factuality evaluation metric, Sentence-BERTScore (SBERTScore), which compares sentences between the summary and the source document.
Our experiments indicate that each technique has different strengths, with SBERTScore particularly effective in identifying correct summaries.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-23T15:02:38Z) - Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score.
Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score.
Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z) - FENICE: Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction [85.26780391682894]
We propose Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction (FENICE)
FENICE leverages an NLI-based alignment between information in the source document and a set of atomic facts, referred to as claims, extracted from the summary.
Our metric sets a new state of the art on AGGREFACT, the de-facto benchmark for factuality evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-04T17:57:18Z) - CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large
Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale.
Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z) - DeltaScore: Fine-Grained Story Evaluation with Perturbations [69.33536214124878]
We introduce DELTASCORE, a novel methodology that employs perturbation techniques for the evaluation of nuanced story aspects.
Our central proposition posits that the extent to which a story excels in a specific aspect (e.g., fluency) correlates with the magnitude of its susceptibility to particular perturbations.
We measure the quality of an aspect by calculating the likelihood difference between pre- and post-perturbation states using pre-trained language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-15T23:45:54Z) - Evaluating and Improving Factuality in Multimodal Abstractive
Summarization [91.46015013816083]
We propose CLIPBERTScore to leverage the robustness and strong factuality detection performance between image-summary and document-summary.
We show that this simple combination of two metrics in the zero-shot achieves higher correlations than existing factuality metrics for document summarization.
Our analysis demonstrates the robustness and high correlation of CLIPBERTScore and its components on four factuality metric-evaluation benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-04T16:50:40Z) - How Far are We from Robust Long Abstractive Summarization? [39.34743996451813]
We evaluate long document abstractive summarization systems (i.e., models and metrics) with the aim of implementing them to generate reliable summaries.
For long document evaluation metrics, human evaluation results show that ROUGE remains the best at evaluating the relevancy of a summary.
We release our annotated long document dataset with the hope that it can contribute to the development of metrics across a broader range of summarization settings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-30T03:19:50Z) - 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) - TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks.
Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations.
Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)
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.