Do Multi-Document Summarization Models Synthesize?

Overview

• This paper explores the ability of modern multi-document summarization models to accurately synthesize and summarize collections of input documents, such as film reviews or clinical trial results.
• The authors run experiments using a variety of summarization models, including fine-tuned transformers and GPT-4, on datasets focused on opinion and evidence synthesis.
• They find that while existing models can perform some level of synthesis, they are imperfect - being overly sensitive to input ordering and under-sensitive to changes in input composition.
• The authors propose a method to improve model synthesis capabilities by generating a diverse set of candidate outputs and selecting the one best aligned with the expected aggregate measure of the inputs.

Plain English Explanation

When you have a collection of documents, like movie reviews or clinical trial results, you might want to create a concise summary that captures the overall message or consensus. This is called multi-document summarization.

The researchers in this paper wanted to see how well modern AI models can do this kind of summarization. They tested different summarization models, from advanced language models like GPT-4 to fine-tuned transformers, on datasets focused on opinion and evidence synthesis.

The researchers found that the models could partially perform this synthesis, but not perfectly. The models were too sensitive to the order of the input documents, and not sensitive enough to changes in the balance of the documents (like having more positive or negative reviews).

To address this, the researchers came up with a simple method to improve the models' synthesis abilities. The idea is to have the model generate multiple possible summaries, and then select the one that best matches the expected overall message or consensus of the input documents.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted experiments using a suite of multi-document summarization models, including fine-tuned transformer models and the powerful GPT-4 language model. They evaluated these models on datasets focused on opinion synthesis (e.g., summarizing film reviews) and evidence synthesis (e.g., summarizing the results of clinical trials).

The results showed that existing models can partially perform this type of synthesis, but with important limitations. The models were found to be overly sensitive to changes in the order of the input documents, and under-sensitive to changes in the composition of the inputs (such as the ratio of positive to negative reviews). This means the models were not consistently capturing the intended aggregate message or consensus.

To address these shortcomings, the researchers proposed a simple, general, and effective method. The key idea is to have the model generate an explicitly diverse set of candidate summaries, and then select the one that is best aligned with the expected aggregate measure for the inputs (e.g., the average sentiment score for a set of reviews). If the model cannot produce any good candidate summaries, it can abstain from generating a result.

This approach leverages the models' existing synthesis capabilities while also allowing for more control over the desired output. The researchers demonstrated the effectiveness of this method through experiments, showing that it can improve the models' ability to accurately summarize collections of documents with respect to a key aspect.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge several limitations and areas for further research. For example, they note that their proposed method requires knowing the expected aggregate measure for the input documents, which may not always be available. Additionally, the datasets used in the experiments, while relevant, may not fully capture the complex challenges of real-world multi-document summarization tasks.

One potential concern is the reliance on language models like GPT-4, which are known to have biases and limitations that could be amplified in the context of multi-document summarization. The researchers do not delve deeply into these model-specific issues and how they might impact the generalizability of their findings.

Furthermore, the researchers focus primarily on the accuracy of the summarization models in capturing the intended aggregate message or consensus. However, other important aspects of multi-document summarization, such as conciseness, relevance, and coherence, are not thoroughly explored in this paper.

Despite these limitations, the researchers' proposed method for improving model synthesis capabilities represents a valuable contribution to the field of multi-document summarization. By highlighting the need for more explicit synthesis-oriented approaches, this work paves the way for further advancements in the ability of AI systems to accurately and effectively summarize collections of diverse inputs.

Conclusion

This paper investigates the extent to which modern multi-document summarization models can implicitly perform the task of synthesizing and accurately summarizing collections of input documents. The researchers find that existing models have limitations in this area, being overly sensitive to input ordering and under-sensitive to changes in input composition.

To address these shortcomings, the researchers propose a simple and effective method that involves generating a diverse set of candidate summaries and selecting the one best aligned with the expected aggregate measure of the inputs. This approach demonstrates the potential to improve the synthesis capabilities of multi-document summarization models, with promising implications for applications such as summarizing biomedical systematic reviews or generating meta-reviews from individual opinions.

While the research has some limitations, it represents an important step forward in understanding and enhancing the ability of AI systems to accurately and effectively summarize complex, multi-source information.