Manual evaluation is essential to judge progress on automatic text summarization. However, we conduct a survey on recent summarization system papers that reveals little agreement on how to perform such evaluation studies. We conduct two evaluation experiments on two aspects of summaries’ linguistic quality (coherence and repetitiveness) to compare Likert-type and ranking annotations and show that best choice of evaluation method can vary from one aspect to another. In our survey, we also find that study parameters such as the overall number of annotators and distribution of annotators to annotation items are often not fully reported and that subsequent statistical analysis ignores grouping factors arising from one annotator judging multiple summaries. Using our evaluation experiments, we show that the total number of annotators can have a strong impact on study power and that current statistical analysis methods can inflate type I error rates up to eight-fold. In addition, we highlight that for the purpose of system comparison the current practice of eliciting multiple judgements per summary leads to less powerful and reliable annotations given a fixed study budget.

Timeline summarization (TLS) automatically identifies key dates of major events and provides short descriptions of what happened on these dates. Previous approaches to TLS have focused on extractive methods. In contrast, we suggest an abstractive timeline summarization system. Our system is entirely unsupervised, which makes it especially suited to TLS where there are very few gold summaries available for training of supervised systems. In addition, we present the first abstractive oracle experiments for TLS. Our system outperforms extractive competitors in terms of ROUGE when the number of input documents is high and the output requires strong compression. In these cases, our oracle experiments confirm that our approach also has a higher upper bound for ROUGE scores than extractive methods. A study with human judges shows that our abstractive system also produces output that is easy to read and understand.

To ensure portability of NLP systems across multiple domains, existing treebanks are often extended by adding trees from interesting domains that were not part of the initial annotation effort. In this paper, we will argue that it is both useful from an application viewpoint and enlightening from a linguistic viewpoint to detect and reduce divergence in annotation schemes between extant and new parts in a set of treebanks that is to be used in evaluation experiments. The results of our correction and harmonization efforts will be made available to the public as a test suite for the evaluation of constituent parsing.