Summarization evaluation remains an open research problem: current metrics such as ROUGE are known to be limited and to correlate poorly with human judgments. To alleviate this issue, recent work has proposed evaluation metrics which rely on question
answering models to assess whether a summary contains all the relevant information in its source document. Though promising, the proposed approaches have so far failed to correlate better than ROUGE with human judgments. In this paper, we extend previous approaches and propose a unified framework, named QuestEval. In contrast to established metrics such as ROUGE or BERTScore, QuestEval does not require any ground-truth reference. Nonetheless, QuestEval substantially improves the correlation with human judgments over four evaluation dimensions (consistency, coherence, fluency, and relevance), as shown in extensive experiments.
Abstract The quality of a summarization evaluation metric is quantified by calculating the correlation between its scores and human annotations across a large number of summaries. Currently, it is unclear how precise these correlation estimates are,
nor whether differences between two metrics' correlations reflect a true difference or if it is due to mere chance. In this work, we address these two problems by proposing methods for calculating confidence intervals and running hypothesis tests for correlations using two resampling methods, bootstrapping and permutation. After evaluating which of the proposed methods is most appropriate for summarization through two simulation experiments, we analyze the results of applying these methods to several different automatic evaluation metrics across three sets of human annotations. We find that the confidence intervals are rather wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in the reliability of automatic metrics. Further, although many metrics fail to show statistical improvements over ROUGE, two recent works, QAEval and BERTScore, do so in some evaluation settings.1
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 evalua
tion 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; and 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.
