CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- CREAM is a novel approach for evaluating meeting summarization systems without relying on human-written reference summaries.
- It uses a comparison-based technique and an ELO-like ranking system to automatically assess the quality of summaries.
- CREAM avoids the limitations of existing reference-based evaluation methods and enables more efficient and scalable assessment of summarization models.
Plain English Explanation
CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization is a new way to evaluate the quality of meeting summaries without requiring human-written reference summaries. Traditional methods for evaluating summarization systems often rely on comparing the system-generated summaries to a set of human-written reference summaries. However, this can be time-consuming and challenging to scale.
CREAM takes a different approach. Instead of comparing the summaries to references, it compares the summaries directly to each other. It uses an ELO-like ranking system, similar to the ratings used in chess, to automatically assess the quality of the summaries. Summaries that are consistently judged to be better than others will be ranked higher, while poorer quality summaries will be ranked lower.
This comparison-based, reference-free approach avoids the limitations of existing evaluation methods. It enables more efficient and scalable assessment of summarization models, as the system can automatically evaluate many summaries without requiring human-written references.
Technical Explanation
CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization proposes a new automatic evaluation method for meeting summarization that does not rely on human-written reference summaries.
The key components of the CREAM approach are:
-
Comparison-based Evaluation: Instead of comparing system-generated summaries to reference summaries, CREAM compares the summaries directly to each other. This avoids the limitations of reference-based evaluation, such as the need for costly human annotations and the inherent subjectivity of reference summaries.
-
ELO-like Ranking System: CREAM uses an ELO-like ranking system, similar to the ratings used in chess, to automatically assess the quality of the summaries. Summaries that are consistently judged to be better than others will be ranked higher, while poorer quality summaries will be ranked lower.
-
Iterative Comparison and Ranking: The system performs pairwise comparisons between summaries and updates the ELO-like rankings accordingly. This iterative process allows the system to converge on a stable ranking of the summaries.
The researchers demonstrate the effectiveness of CREAM by applying it to several meeting summarization datasets and comparing its performance to existing reference-based evaluation metrics. They show that CREAM can provide a reliable and scalable assessment of summarization quality without the need for human-written reference summaries.
Critical Analysis
The CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization paper presents a promising approach to evaluating meeting summarization systems, but it also has some potential limitations and areas for further research:
-
Reliance on Pairwise Comparisons: The CREAM method relies on pairwise comparisons between summaries, which can be computationally expensive as the number of summaries grows. Further research could explore ways to make the comparison process more efficient, such as by incorporating techniques like active learning or sampling.
-
Potential Biases in Comparisons: The pairwise comparisons used in CREAM may be influenced by various biases, such as the order in which the summaries are presented or the specific comparison criteria used. Investigating ways to mitigate these biases would be an important area for future work.
-
Generalization to Other Summarization Tasks: While the paper focuses on meeting summarization, it would be valuable to explore the applicability of the CREAM approach to other summarization domains, such as news articles or scientific papers. This could help validate the generalizability of the method.
-
Interpretation of ELO-like Ratings: The ELO-like ranking system used in CREAM provides a relative assessment of summary quality, but the interpretation of the actual rating values may not be intuitive. Further research could explore ways to make the ratings more interpretable, such as by mapping them to human-understandable quality scores.
Overall, the CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization paper presents an innovative and promising approach to evaluating meeting summarization systems. By avoiding the need for human-written reference summaries, it addresses a key limitation of existing evaluation methods and opens up new possibilities for more efficient and scalable assessment of summarization models.
Conclusion
CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization introduces a novel automatic evaluation method for meeting summarization that does not rely on human-written reference summaries. By using a comparison-based approach and an ELO-like ranking system, CREAM can assess the quality of summaries in a more efficient and scalable way than traditional reference-based evaluation methods.
The key contributions of CREAM include:
- Avoiding the Limitations of Reference-based Evaluation: CREAM sidesteps the challenges of requiring human-written reference summaries, which can be time-consuming and difficult to scale.
- Enabling Efficient and Scalable Summarization Assessment: The comparison-based and ELO-like ranking approach allows CREAM to automatically evaluate many summaries without the need for costly human annotations.
- Providing a Reliable Relative Assessment of Summary Quality: The ELO-like ratings generated by CREAM offer a way to rank summaries based on their performance, even in the absence of reference summaries.
While the CREAM approach shows promise, there are also some potential limitations and areas for further research, such as addressing computational efficiency, mitigating biases in comparisons, and improving the interpretability of the ELO-like ratings. Nonetheless, this paper represents an important step forward in the field of automatic summarization evaluation and opens up new possibilities for the development and assessment of more sophisticated summarization models.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization
Ziwei Gong, Lin Ai, Harshsaiprasad Deshpande, Alexander Johnson, Emmy Phung, Zehui Wu, Ahmad Emami, Julia Hirschberg
Large Language Models (LLMs) have spurred interest in automatic evaluation methods for summarization, offering a faster, more cost-effective alternative to human evaluation. However, existing methods often fall short when applied to complex tasks like long-context summarizations and dialogue-based meeting summarizations. In this paper, we introduce CREAM (Comparison-Based Reference-Free Elo-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization), a novel framework that addresses the unique challenges of evaluating meeting summaries. CREAM leverages a combination of chain-of-thought reasoning and key facts alignment to assess conciseness and completeness of model-generated summaries without requiring reference. By employing an ELO ranking system, our approach provides a robust mechanism for comparing the quality of different models or prompt configurations.
Read more9/18/2024
0
A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization
Huyen Nguyen, Haihua Chen, Lavanya Pobbathi, Junhua Ding
Evaluating text summarization has been a challenging task in natural language processing (NLP). Automatic metrics which heavily rely on reference summaries are not suitable in many situations, while human evaluation is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a novel method based on large language models (LLMs) for evaluating text summarization. We also conducts a comparative study on eight automatic metrics, human evaluation, and our proposed LLM-based method. Seven different types of state-of-the-art (SOTA) summarization models were evaluated. We perform extensive experiments and analysis on datasets with patent documents. Our results show that LLMs evaluation aligns closely with human evaluation, while widely-used automatic metrics such as ROUGE-2, BERTScore, and SummaC do not and also lack consistency. Based on the empirical comparison, we propose a LLM-powered framework for automatically evaluating and improving text summarization, which is beneficial and could attract wide attention among the community.
Read more7/2/2024
0
What's Wrong? Refining Meeting Summaries with LLM Feedback
Frederic Kirstein, Terry Ruas, Bela Gipp
Meeting summarization has become a critical task since digital encounters have become a common practice. Large language models (LLMs) show great potential in summarization, offering enhanced coherence and context understanding compared to traditional methods. However, they still struggle to maintain relevance and avoid hallucination. We introduce a multi-LLM correction approach for meeting summarization using a two-phase process that mimics the human review process: mistake identification and summary refinement. We release QMSum Mistake, a dataset of 200 automatically generated meeting summaries annotated by humans on nine error types, including structural, omission, and irrelevance errors. Our experiments show that these errors can be identified with high accuracy by an LLM. We transform identified mistakes into actionable feedback to improve the quality of a given summary measured by relevance, informativeness, conciseness, and coherence. This post-hoc refinement effectively improves summary quality by leveraging multiple LLMs to validate output quality. Our multi-LLM approach for meeting summarization shows potential for similar complex text generation tasks requiring robustness, action planning, and discussion towards a goal.
Read more7/17/2024
📉
0
Summaries, Highlights, and Action items: Design, implementation and evaluation of an LLM-powered meeting recap system
Sumit Asthana, Sagih Hilleli, Pengcheng He, Aaron Halfaker
Meetings play a critical infrastructural role in the coordination of work. In recent years, due to shift to hybrid and remote work, more meetings are moving to online Computer Mediated Spaces. This has led to new problems (e.g. more time spent in less engaging meetings) and new opportunities (e.g. automated transcription/captioning and recap support). Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) for dialog summarization have the potential to improve the experience of meetings by reducing individuals' meeting load and increasing the clarity and alignment of meeting outputs. Despite this potential, they face technological limitation due to long transcripts and inability to capture diverse recap needs based on user's context. To address these gaps, we design, implement and evaluate in-context a meeting recap system. We first conceptualize two salient recap representations -- important highlights, and a structured, hierarchical minutes view. We develop a system to operationalize the representations with dialogue summarization as its building blocks. Finally, we evaluate the effectiveness of the system with seven users in the context of their work meetings. Our findings show promise in using LLM-based dialogue summarization for meeting recap and the need for both representations in different contexts. However, we find that LLM-based recap still lacks an understanding of whats personally relevant to participants, can miss important details, and mis-attributions can be detrimental to group dynamics. We identify collaboration opportunities such as a shared recap document that a high quality recap enables. We report on implications for designing AI systems to partner with users to learn and improve from natural interactions to overcome the limitations related to personal relevance and summarization quality.
Read more8/30/2024