arXiv · 2407.00747
A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization
Abstract
Evaluating text summarization has been a challenging task in natural language processing (NLP). Automatic metrics which heavily rely on reference summaries are not suitable in many situations, while human evaluation is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a novel method based on large language models (LLMs) for evaluating text summarization. We also conducts a comparative study on eight automatic metrics, human evaluation, and our proposed LLM-based method. Seven different types of state-of-the-art (SOTA) summarization models were evaluated. We perform extensive experiments and analysis on datasets with patent documents. 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. Based on the empirical comparison, we propose a LLM-powered framework for automatically evaluating and improving text summarization, which is beneficial and could attract wide attention among the community.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Huyen Nguyen, Haihua Chen, Lavanya Pobbathi, Junhua Ding. 2024-06-30. A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00747
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.