REVIEW 3 cited by
SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The scarcity of comprehensive up-to-date studies on evaluation metrics for text summarization and the lack of consensus regarding evaluation protocols continue to inhibit progress. We address the existing shortcomings of summarization evaluation methods along five dimensions: 1) we re-evaluate 14 automatic evaluation metrics in a comprehensive and consistent fashion using neural summarization model outputs along with expert and crowd-sourced human annotations, 2) we consistently benchmark 23 recent summarization models using the aforementioned automatic evaluation metrics, 3) we assemble the largest collection of summaries generated by models trained on the CNN/DailyMail news dataset and share it in a unified format, 4) we implement and share a toolkit that provides an extensible and unified API for evaluating summarization models across a broad range of automatic metrics, 5) we assemble and share the largest and most diverse, in terms of model types, collection of human judgments of model-generated summaries on the CNN/Daily Mail dataset annotated by both expert judges and crowd-source workers. We hope that this work will help promote a more complete evaluation protocol for text summarization as well as advance research in developing evaluation metrics that better correlate with human judgments.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Revisiting Metric Reliability for Fine-grained Evaluation of Machine Translation and Summarization in Indian Languages
LLM-as-judge metrics (DeepSeek-V3 most of all) correlate best with human ratings across six Indian languages, though all segment-level correlations are low and many differences lack confidence intervals.
-
IDEAlign: Comparing Large Language Models to Human Experts in Open-ended Interpretive Annotations
IDEAlign uses a pick-the-odd-one-out triplet task to measure idea-level similarity between LLMs and expert human annotations, and shows LLM judges using this protocol outperform lexical and vector-based baselines.
-
LLMs as Architects and Critics for Multi-Source Opinion Summarization
A new benchmark and prompt framework for generating and automatically evaluating product summaries that blend customer reviews with product metadata, with the best evaluator reaching 0.74 average Spearman correlation ...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.