We study existing approaches to leverage off-the-shelf Natural Language Inference (NLI) models for the evaluation of summary faithfulness and argue that these are sub-optimal due to the granularity level considered for premises and hypotheses. That is, the smaller content unit considered as hypothesis is a sentence and premises are made up of a fixed number of document sentences. We propose a novel approach, namely INFUSE, that uses a variable premise size and simplifies summary sentences into shorter hypotheses. Departing from previous studies which focus on single short document summarisation, we analyse NLI based faithfulness evaluation for diverse summarisation tasks. We introduce DiverSumm, a new benchmark comprising long form summarisation (long documents and summaries) and diverse summarisation tasks (e.g., meeting and multi-document summarisation). In experiments, INFUSE obtains superior performance across the different summarisation tasks.

Recent advances have made non-autoregressive (NAT) translation comparable to autoregressive methods (AT). However, their evaluation using BLEU has been shown to weakly correlate with human annotations. Limited research compares non-autoregressive translation and autoregressive translation comprehensively, leaving uncertainty about the true proximity of NAT to AT. To address this gap, we systematically evaluate four representative NAT methods across various dimensions, including human evaluation. Our empirical results demonstrate that despite narrowing the performance gap, state-of-the-art NAT still underperforms AT under more reliable evaluation metrics. Furthermore, we discover that explicitly modeling dependencies is crucial for generating natural language and generalizing to out-of-distribution sequences.

Synthetically created Cross-Lingual Summarisation (CLS) datasets are prone to include document-summary pairs where the reference summary is unfaithful to the corresponding document as it contains content not supported by the document (i.e., hallucinated content). This low data quality misleads model learning and obscures evaluation results. Automatic ways to assess hallucinations and improve training have been proposed for monolingual summarisation, predominantly in English. For CLS, we propose to use off-the-shelf cross-lingual Natural Language Inference (X-NLI) to evaluate faithfulness of reference and model generated summaries. Then, we study training approaches that are aware of faithfulness issues in the training data and propose an approach that uses unlikelihood loss to teach a model about unfaithful summary sequences. Our results show that it is possible to train CLS models that yield more faithful and at the same time informative summaries.

Most existing cross-lingual summarization (CLS) work constructs CLS corpora by simply and directly translating pre-annotated summaries from one language to another, which can contain errors from both summarization and translation processes. To address this issue, we propose ConvSumX, a cross-lingual conversation summarization benchmark, through a new annotation schema that explicitly considers source input context. ConvSumX consists of 2 sub-tasks under different real-world scenarios, with each covering 3 language directions. We conduct thorough analysis on ConvSumX and 3 widely-used manually annotated CLS corpora and empirically find that ConvSumX is more faithful towards input text. Additionally, based on the same intuition, we propose a 2-Step method, which takes both conversation and summary as input to simulate human annotation process. Experimental results show that 2-Step method surpasses strong baselines on ConvSumX under both automatic and human evaluation. Analysis shows that both source input text and summary are crucial for modeling cross-lingual summaries.