Studying Summarization Evaluation Metrics in the Appropriate Scoring Range (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation metrics are compared based on their ability to correlate with humans, but they disagree in the higher-scoring range in which current systems operate. |
| Approach: | They show that evaluation metrics which behave similarly on these datasets strongly disagree in the higher-scoring range in which current systems operate. |
| Outcome: | The evaluation metrics which behave similarly on these datasets strongly disagree in the higher-scoring range in which current systems operate. |
Similar Papers
Metrics also Disagree in the Low Scoring Range: Revisiting Summarization Evaluation Metrics (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | In text summarization evaluation, evaluating the efficacy of automated metrics without human judgments has become popular. |
| Approach: | They revisit their experiments and find that automatic metrics disagree when ranking high-scoring summaries. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method is a human judgment-free method, but it is not a meta-evaluation strategy. |
Re-Examining System-Level Correlations of Automatic Summarization Evaluation Metrics (2022.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing definitions of system-level correlations are inconsistent with how they are used to evaluate systems. |
| Approach: | They propose to calculate correlations only on pairs of systems separated by small differences in automatic scores . they propose to use the full test set instead of the subset of summaries judged by humans . |
| Outcome: | The proposed changes improve the accuracy of the estimated correlations on pairs of systems separated by small differences in automatic scores. |
SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation (2021.tacl-1)
Copied to clipboard
Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Kryściński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, Dragomir Radev
| Challenge: | a lack of comprehensive studies on evaluation metrics for text summarization hinders progress . a new study aims to improve evaluation metrics that correlate with human judgments . |
| Approach: | They propose to re-evaluate automatic evaluation metrics and share a toolkit for evaluation . they hope to promote a more complete evaluation protocol for text summarization . |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation metrics are inconsistent with existing evaluation protocols. |
A Critical Look at Meta-evaluating Summarisation Evaluation Metrics (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Effective summarisation evaluation metrics enable researchers and practitioners to compare different summarization systems efficiently. |
| Approach: | They argue that evaluation metrics are primarily meta-evaluated on news summarisation datasets and that there has been a noticeable shift in research focus towards evaluating the faithfulness of generated summaries. |
| Outcome: | The evaluation metrics are primarily meta-evaluated on news summarisation datasets and there has been a noticeable shift in research focus towards evaluating the faithfulness of generated summaries. |
Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarization (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Automated evaluation metrics are an essential part of the development of text-generation tasks such as summarization. |
| Approach: | They propose to use top-scoring system outputs to assess the reliability of automatic evaluation metrics for text summarization. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation method is based on human judgments from 25 top-scoring neural summarization systems. |
How to Find Strong Summary Coherence Measures? A Toolbox and a Comparative Study for Summary Coherence Measure Evaluation (2022.coling-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to evaluate summary coherence are often evaluated using disparate datasets and metrics. |
| Approach: | They propose to use automatic evaluation to evaluate coherence of summaries by selecting high-scoring candidates. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods show that they can perform better on an even playing field. |
Is Human Scoring the Best Criteria for Summary Evaluation? (2021.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies on summary quality measure have shown that it correlates well with quality scores produced by human annotators. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a criterion that does not rely on human scores to judge summary quality . they propose to develop a method that can be used to determine the best measure from a family of measures . |
| Outcome: | The proposed measure could be used to determine the best summary quality measure from a family of measures. |
A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics Using Resampling Methods (2021.tacl-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for summarization evaluations that approximate human judgments are lacking for accuracy and reliability. |
| Approach: | They propose methods for calculating confidence intervals and running hypothesis tests for correlations using bootstrapping and permutation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods show that the confidence intervals are wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in the reliability of automatic metrics. |
Automated Metrics for Medical Multi-Document Summarization Disagree with Human Evaluations (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Lucy Lu Wang, Yulia Otmakhova, Jay DeYoung, Thinh Hung Truong, Bailey Kuehl, Erin Bransom, Byron Wallace
| Challenge: | Prior work has shown that models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. |
| Approach: | They propose to use human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to improve MDS evaluation methods. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods improve the quality of literature review summarization models . they use human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences . |
Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yixin Liu, Alex Fabbri, Pengfei Liu, Yilun Zhao, Linyong Nan, Ruilin Han, Simeng Han, Shafiq Joty, Chien-Sheng Wu, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev
| Challenge: | Existing studies for summarization evaluation exhibit low inter-annotator agreement or lack scale. |
| Approach: | They propose a modified summarization salience protocol based on fine-grained semantic units and a robust summarizing evaluation benchmark. |
| Outcome: | The proposed protocol is based on fine-grained semantic units and allows for high inter-annotator agreement. |