Consistency Evaluation of News Article Summaries Generated by Large (and Small) Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.20647v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 01:58:17 GMT
• Title: Consistency Evaluation of News Article Summaries Generated by Large (and Small) Language Models
• Authors: Colleen Gilhuly, Haleh Shahzad,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in generating fluent abstractive summaries but they can produce hallucinated details not grounded in the source text.<n>This paper embarks on an exploration of text summarization with a diverse set of techniques, including TextRank, BART, Mistral-7B-Instruct, and OpenAI GPT-3.5-Turbo.<n>We find that all summarization models produce consistent summaries when tested on the XL-Sum dataset.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Text summarizing is a critical Natural Language Processing (NLP) task with applications ranging from information retrieval to content generation. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in generating fluent abstractive summaries but they can produce hallucinated details not grounded in the source text. Regardless of the method of generating a summary, high quality automated evaluations remain an open area of investigation. This paper embarks on an exploration of text summarization with a diverse set of techniques, including TextRank, BART, Mistral-7B-Instruct, and OpenAI GPT-3.5-Turbo. The generated summaries are evaluated using traditional metrics such as the Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation (ROUGE) Score and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) Score, as well as LLM-powered evaluation methods that directly assess a generated summary's consistency with the source text. We introduce a meta evaluation score which directly assesses the performance of the LLM evaluation system (prompt + model). We find that that all summarization models produce consistent summaries when tested on the XL-Sum dataset, exceeding the consistency of the reference summaries.

Related papers

• A Guide To Effectively Leveraging LLMs for Low-Resource Text Summarization: Data Augmentation and Semi-supervised Approaches [12.582774521907227]
  Existing approaches for low-resource text summarization primarily employ large language models (LLMs) at inference time to generate summaries directly.<n>We propose two novel methods to effectively utilize LLMs for low-resource text summarization: 1) MixSumm, an LLM-based data augmentation regime that synthesizes high-quality documents (short and long) for few-shot text summarization, and 2) PPSL, a prompt-based pseudolabeling strategy for sample-efficient semi-supervised text summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T03:25:47Z)
• Towards Enhancing Coherence in Extractive Summarization: Dataset and Experiments with LLMs [70.15262704746378]
  We propose a systematically created human-annotated dataset consisting of coherent summaries for five publicly available datasets and natural language user feedback. Preliminary experiments with Falcon-40B and Llama-2-13B show significant performance improvements (10% Rouge-L) in terms of producing coherent summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T20:25:04Z)
• 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)
• AMRFact: Enhancing Summarization Factuality Evaluation with AMR-Driven Negative Samples Generation [57.8363998797433]
  We propose AMRFact, a framework that generates perturbed summaries using Abstract Meaning Representations (AMRs) Our approach parses factually consistent summaries into AMR graphs and injects controlled factual inconsistencies to create negative examples, allowing for coherent factually inconsistent summaries to be generated with high error-type coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T02:56:29Z)
• 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)
• Automatic News Summerization [0.0]
  The study employs the CNN-Daily Mail dataset, which consists of news articles and human-generated reference summaries. The evaluation employs ROUGE scores to assess the efficacy and quality of generated summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:38:03Z)
• Text Summarization Using Large Language Models: A Comparative Study of MPT-7b-instruct, Falcon-7b-instruct, and OpenAI Chat-GPT Models [0.0]
  Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) has shown remarkable promise in enhancing summarization techniques. This paper embarks on an exploration of text summarization with a diverse set of LLMs, including MPT-7b-instruct, falcon-7b-instruct, and OpenAI ChatGPT text-davinci-003 models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T14:33:02Z)
• Summarization is (Almost) Dead [49.360752383801305]
  We develop new datasets and conduct human evaluation experiments to evaluate the zero-shot generation capability of large language models (LLMs) Our findings indicate a clear preference among human evaluators for LLM-generated summaries over human-written summaries and summaries generated by fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T08:13:01Z)
• SummIt: Iterative Text Summarization via ChatGPT [12.966825834765814]
  We propose SummIt, an iterative text summarization framework based on large language models like ChatGPT. Our framework enables the model to refine the generated summary iteratively through self-evaluation and feedback. We also conduct a human evaluation to validate the effectiveness of the iterative refinements and identify a potential issue of over-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:40:06Z)
• Element-aware Summarization with Large Language Models: Expert-aligned Evaluation and Chain-of-Thought Method [35.181659789684545]
  Automatic summarization generates concise summaries that contain key ideas of source documents. References from CNN/DailyMail and BBC XSum are noisy, mainly in terms of factual hallucination and information redundancy. We propose a Summary Chain-of-Thought (SumCoT) technique to elicit LLMs to generate summaries step by step. Experimental results show our method outperforms state-of-the-art fine-tuned PLMs and zero-shot LLMs by +4.33/+4.77 in ROUGE-L.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T18:54:35Z)
• 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)
• Understanding the Extent to which Summarization Evaluation Metrics Measure the Information Quality of Summaries [74.28810048824519]
  We analyze the token alignments used by ROUGE and BERTScore to compare summaries. We argue that their scores largely cannot be interpreted as measuring information overlap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T15:55:15Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.