Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.

We provide an overview of the MSLR2022 shared task on multi-document summarization for literature reviews. The shared task was hosted at the Third Scholarly Document Processing (SDP) Workshop at COLING 2022. For this task, we provided data consisting of gold summaries extracted from review papers along with the groups of input abstracts that were synthesized into these summaries, split into two subtasks. In total, six teams participated, making 10 public submissions, 6 to the Cochrane subtask and 4 to the MSˆ2 subtask. The top scoring systems reported over 2 points ROUGE-L improvement on the Cochrane subtask, though performance improvements are not consistently reported across all automated evaluation metrics; qualitative examination of the results also suggests the inadequacy of current evaluation metrics for capturing factuality and consistency on this task. Significant work is needed to improve system performance, and more importantly, to develop better methods for automatically evaluating performance on this task.

To assess the effectiveness of any medical intervention, researchers must conduct a time-intensive and manual literature review. NLP systems can help to automate or assist in parts of this expensive process. In support of this goal, we release MSˆ2 (Multi-Document Summarization of Medical Studies), a dataset of over 470k documents and 20K summaries derived from the scientific literature. This dataset facilitates the development of systems that can assess and aggregate contradictory evidence across multiple studies, and is the first large-scale, publicly available multi-document summarization dataset in the biomedical domain. We experiment with a summarization system based on BART, with promising early results, though significant work remains to achieve higher summarization quality. We formulate our summarization inputs and targets in both free text and structured forms and modify a recently proposed metric to assess the quality of our system’s generated summaries. Data and models are available at https://github.com/allenai/ms2.

State-of-the-art models in NLP are now predominantly based on deep neural networks that are opaque in terms of how they come to make predictions. This limitation has increased interest in designing more interpretable deep models for NLP that reveal the ‘reasoning’ behind model outputs. But work in this direction has been conducted on different datasets and tasks with correspondingly unique aims and metrics; this makes it difficult to track progress. We propose the Evaluating Rationales And Simple English Reasoning (ERASER a benchmark to advance research on interpretable models in NLP. This benchmark comprises multiple datasets and tasks for which human annotations of “rationales” (supporting evidence) have been collected. We propose several metrics that aim to capture how well the rationales provided by models align with human rationales, and also how faithful these rationales are (i.e., the degree to which provided rationales influenced the corresponding predictions). Our hope is that releasing this benchmark facilitates progress on designing more interpretable NLP systems. The benchmark, code, and documentation are available at https://www.eraserbenchmark.com/

How do we most effectively treat a disease or condition? Ideally, we could consult a database of evidence gleaned from clinical trials to answer such questions. Unfortunately, no such database exists; clinical trial results are instead disseminated primarily via lengthy natural language articles. Perusing all such articles would be prohibitively time-consuming for healthcare practitioners; they instead tend to depend on manually compiled systematic reviews of medical literature to inform care. NLP may speed this process up, and eventually facilitate immediate consult of published evidence. The Evidence Inference dataset was recently released to facilitate research toward this end. This task entails inferring the comparative performance of two treatments, with respect to a given outcome, from a particular article (describing a clinical trial) and identifying supporting evidence. For instance: Does this article report that chemotherapy performed better than surgery for five-year survival rates of operable cancers? In this paper, we collect additional annotations to expand the Evidence Inference dataset by 25%, provide stronger baseline models, systematically inspect the errors that these make, and probe dataset quality. We also release an abstract only (as opposed to full-texts) version of the task for rapid model prototyping. The updated corpus, documentation, and code for new baselines and evaluations are available at http://evidence-inference.ebm-nlp.com/.

How do we know if a particular medical treatment actually works? Ideally one would consult all available evidence from relevant clinical trials. Unfortunately, such results are primarily disseminated in natural language scientific articles, imposing substantial burden on those trying to make sense of them. In this paper, we present a new task and corpus for making this unstructured published scientific evidence actionable. The task entails inferring reported findings from a full-text article describing randomized controlled trials (RCT) with respect to a given intervention, comparator, and outcome of interest, e.g., inferring if a given article provides evidence supporting the use of aspirin to reduce risk of stroke, as compared to placebo. We present a new corpus for this task comprising 10,000+ prompts coupled with full-text articles describing RCTs. Results using a suite of baseline models — ranging from heuristic (rule-based) approaches to attentive neural architectures — demonstrate the difficulty of the task, which we believe largely owes to the lengthy, technical input texts. To facilitate further work on this important, challenging problem we make the corpus, documentation, a website and leaderboard, and all source code for baselines and evaluation publicly available.