Abstract The scarcity of comprehensive up-to-date studies on evaluation metrics for text summarization and the lack of consensus regarding evaluation protocols continue to inhibit progress. We address the existing shortcomings of summarization evaluation methods along five dimensions: 1) we re-evaluate 14 automatic evaluation metrics in a comprehensive and consistent fashion using neural summarization model outputs along with expert and crowd-sourced human annotations; 2) we consistently benchmark 23 recent summarization models using the aforementioned automatic evaluation metrics; 3) we assemble the largest collection of summaries generated by models trained on the CNN/DailyMail news dataset and share it in a unified format; 4) we implement and share a toolkit that provides an extensible and unified API for evaluating summarization models across a broad range of automatic metrics; and 5) we assemble and share the largest and most diverse, in terms of model types, collection of human judgments of model-generated summaries on the CNN/Daily Mail dataset annotated by both expert judges and crowd-source workers. We hope that this work will help promote a more complete evaluation protocol for text summarization as well as advance research in developing evaluation metrics that better correlate with human judgments.

Novel neural architectures, training strategies, and the availability of large-scale corpora haven been the driving force behind recent progress in abstractive text summarization. However, due to the black-box nature of neural models, uninformative evaluation metrics, and scarce tooling for model and data analysis the true performance and failure modes of summarization models remain largely unknown. To address this limitation, we introduce SummVis, an open-source tool for visualizing abstractive summaries that enables fine-grained analysis of the models, data, and evaluation metrics associated with text summarization. Through its lexical and semantic visualizations, the tools offers an easy entry point for in-depth model prediction exploration across important dimensions such as factual consistency or abstractiveness. The tool together with several pre-computed model outputs is available at https://summvis.com.

Human-like chit-chat conversation requires agents to generate responses that are fluent, engaging and consistent. We propose Sketch- Fill-A-R, a framework that uses a persona-memory to generate chit-chat responses in three phases. First, it generates dynamic sketch responses with open slots. Second, it generates candidate responses by filling slots with parts of its stored persona traits. Lastly, it ranks and selects the final response via a language model score. Sketch-Fill-A-R outperforms a state-of-the-art baseline both quantitatively (10-point lower perplexity) and qualitatively (preferred by 55% in head-to-head single-turn studies and 20% higher in consistency in multi-turn user studies) on the Persona-Chat dataset. Finally, we extensively analyze Sketch-Fill-A-R’s responses and human feedback, and show it is more consistent and engaging by using more relevant responses and questions.

The most common metrics for assessing summarization algorithms do not account for whether summaries are factually consistent with source documents. We propose a weakly-supervised, model-based approach for verifying factual consistency and identifying conflicts between source documents and generated summaries. Training data is generated by applying a series of rule-based transformations to the sentences of source documents.The factual consistency model is then trained jointly for three tasks: 1) predict whether each summary sentence is factually consistent or not, 2) in either case, extract a span in the source document to support this consistency prediction, 3) for each summary sentence that is deemed inconsistent, extract the inconsistent span from it. Transferring this model to summaries generated by several neural models reveals that this highly scalable approach outperforms previous models, including those trained with strong supervision using datasets from related domains, such as natural language inference and fact checking. Additionally, human evaluation shows that the auxiliary span extraction tasks provide useful assistance in the process of verifying factual consistency. We also release a manually annotated dataset for factual consistency verification, code for training data generation, and trained model weights at https://github.com/salesforce/factCC.

Text summarization aims at compressing long documents into a shorter form that conveys the most important parts of the original document. Despite increased interest in the community and notable research effort, progress on benchmark datasets has stagnated. We critically evaluate key ingredients of the current research setup: datasets, evaluation metrics, and models, and highlight three primary shortcomings: 1) automatically collected datasets leave the task underconstrained and may contain noise detrimental to training and evaluation, 2) current evaluation protocol is weakly correlated with human judgment and does not account for important characteristics such as factual correctness, 3) models overfit to layout biases of current datasets and offer limited diversity in their outputs.

Abstractive text summarization aims to shorten long text documents into a human readable form that contains the most important facts from the original document. However, the level of actual abstraction as measured by novel phrases that do not appear in the source document remains low in existing approaches. We propose two techniques to improve the level of abstraction of generated summaries. First, we decompose the decoder into a contextual network that retrieves relevant parts of the source document, and a pretrained language model that incorporates prior knowledge about language generation. Second, we propose a novelty metric that is optimized directly through policy learning to encourage the generation of novel phrases. Our model achieves results comparable to state-of-the-art models, as determined by ROUGE scores and human evaluations, while achieving a significantly higher level of abstraction as measured by n-gram overlap with the source document.