It has been the norm for a long time to evaluate automated summarization tasks using the popular ROUGE metric. Although several studies in the past have highlighted the limitations of ROUGE, researchers have struggled to reach a consensus on a better alternative until today. One major limitation of the traditional ROUGE metric is the lack of semantic understanding (relies on direct overlap of n-grams). In this paper, we exclusively focus on the extractive summarization task and propose a semantic-aware nCG (normalized cumulative gain)-based evaluation metric (called Sem-nCG) for evaluating this task. One fundamental contribution of the paper is that it demonstrates how we can generate more reliable semantic-aware ground truths for evaluating extractive summarization tasks without any additional human intervention. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first of its kind. We have conducted extensive experiments with this new metric using the widely used CNN/DailyMail dataset. Experimental results show that the new Sem-nCG metric is indeed semantic-aware, shows higher correlation with human judgement (more reliable) and yields a large number of disagreements with the original ROUGE metric (suggesting that ROUGE often leads to inaccurate conclusions also verified by humans).

In this paper, we introduce an important yet relatively unexplored NLP task called Semantic Overlap Summarization (SOS), which entails generating a single summary from multiple alternative narratives which can convey the common information provided by those narratives. As no benchmark dataset is readily available for this task, we created one by collecting 2,925 alternative narrative pairs from the web and then, went through the tedious process of manually creating 411 different reference summaries by engaging human annotators. As a way to evaluate this novel task, we first conducted a systematic study by borrowing the popular ROUGE metric from text-summarization literature and discovered that ROUGE is not suitable for our task. Subsequently, we conducted further human annotations to create 200 document-level and 1,518 sentence-level ground-truth overlap labels. Our experiments show that the sentence-wise annotation technique with three overlap labels, i.e., Absent (A), Partially-Present (PP), and Present (P), yields a higher correlation with human judgment and higher inter-rater agreement compared to the ROUGE metric.