What Have We Achieved on Text Summarization?
Dandan Huang, Leyang Cui, Sen Yang, Guangsheng Bao, Kun Wang, Jun Xie, Yue Zhang
Abstract
Deep learning has led to significant improvement in text summarization with various methods investigated and improved ROUGE scores reported over the years. However, gaps still exist between summaries produced by automatic summarizers and human professionals. Aiming to gain more understanding of summarization systems with respect to their strengths and limits on a fine-grained syntactic and semantic level, we consult the Multidimensional Quality Metric 1 (MQM) and quantify 8 major sources of errors on 10 representative summarization models manually. Primarily, we find that 1) under similar settings, extractive summarizers are in general better than their abstractive counterparts thanks to strength in faithfulness and factual-consistency; 2) milestone techniques such as copy, coverage and hybrid extractive/abstractive methods do bring specific improvements but also demonstrate limitations; 3) pre-training techniques, and in particular sequence-to-sequence pre-training, are highly effective for improving text summarization, with BART giving the best results. * Equal contribution. † Corresponding author. 1 MQM is a framework for declaring and describing human writing quality which stipulates a hierarchical listing of error types restricted to human writing and translation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext d84ce507-9349-416d-82be-14e5b412b6deCited by top-tier papers23
- Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human EvaluationYixin Liu, Alexander R. Fabbri, Pengfei Liu, Yilun Zhao et al.ACL 2023 · 50 citations
- AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with A Unified Alignment FunctionYuheng Zha, Yichi Yang, Ruichen Li, Zhiting HuACL 2023 · 44 citations
- Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error DetectorsLiyan Tang, Tanya Goyal, Alexander R. Fabbri, Philippe Laban et al.ACL 2023 · 38 citations
- SummEdits: Measuring LLM Ability at Factual Reasoning Through The Lens of SummarizationPhilippe Laban, Wojciech Kryscinski, Divyansh Agarwal, Alexander R. Fabbri et al.EMNLP 2023 · 29 citations
- MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding DocumentsLiyan Tang, Philippe Laban, Greg DurrettEMNLP 2024 · 26 citations
Builds on3
- BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTTianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger et al.ICLR 2020 · 8,443 citations
- Extractive Summarization as Text MatchingMing Zhong, Pengfei Liu, Yiran Chen, Danqing Wang et al.ACL 2020 · 410 citations
- On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive SummarizationJoshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, Ryan T. McDonaldACL 2020 · 54 citations
Related papers
- How Do Seq2Seq Models Perform on End-to-End Data-to-Text Generation?Xunjian Yin, Xiaojun WanACL 2022 · 23 citations
- Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text SummarizationManik Bhandari, Pranav Narayan Gour, Atabak Ashfaq, Pengfei Liu et al.EMNLP 2020 · 3 citations
- Multi-Fact Correction in Abstractive Text SummarizationYue Dong, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng et al.EMNLP 2020 · 99 citations
- How Far are We from Robust Long Abstractive Summarization?Huan Yee Koh, Jiaxin Ju, He Zhang, Ming Liu et al.EMNLP 2022 · 16 citations
- FineSurE: Fine-grained Summarization Evaluation using LLMsHwanjun Song, Hang Su, Igor Shalyminov, Jason Cai et al.ACL 2024
