On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References

Overview

• Researchers have found that summaries generated by large language models (LLMs) are preferred by human annotators over the original reference summaries in common text summarization datasets.
• This study explores using LLMs as a reference for training smaller text summarization models, investigating whether their performance can be substantially improved.
• The researchers use LLMs as both oracle summary generators for standard supervised fine-tuning and oracle summary evaluators for efficient contrastive learning that leverages the LLMs' supervision signals.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text on a variety of topics. Recent studies have found that when these LLMs are used to generate summaries of text, people often prefer the LLM-generated summaries over the "official" reference summaries that were created by humans.

In this research, the scientists wanted to see if they could use these LLM-generated summaries as a guide to help train smaller text summarization models to perform better. They did this in two ways:

1. Supervised Fine-Tuning: They used the LLM-generated summaries as the "correct" answers to train their smaller summarization models.
2. Contrastive Learning: They used the LLM-generated summaries to provide feedback and guidance to their smaller models during the training process, helping them learn what makes a good summary.

The researchers found that the summarization models trained using the LLM-generated summaries as a reference were significantly better at generating high-quality summaries, as evaluated by both the LLMs themselves and by human judges.

Interestingly, the contrastive learning approach, which used the LLM-generated summaries to give feedback, worked better than the standard supervised fine-tuning, especially when the researchers had limited training data.

This research suggests that leveraging the capabilities of large language models could be a powerful way to improve the performance of smaller summarization models. However, the study also found that the LLMs are not perfect evaluators of summary quality, and there are still some nuanced differences between the LLM-generated summaries and the ones preferred by human judges.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted a series of experiments to investigate whether using LLMs as a reference can substantially improve the performance of smaller text summarization models.

First, they used the LLM-generated summaries as "ground truth" during the standard supervised fine-tuning of their summarization models. This allowed the models to learn from the high-quality summaries produced by the LLMs.

Second, they developed a contrastive learning approach that used the LLM-generated summaries as an "oracle" to provide guidance and feedback to the summarization models during training. This helped the models learn what characteristics make a good summary, as defined by the LLMs.

The researchers evaluated the summarization models trained with these LLM-based approaches on both LLM-based metrics and human evaluations. They found that the models trained using the LLM-as-reference setting achieved significant performance improvements compared to baseline models.

Notably, the contrastive learning approach outperformed the standard supervised fine-tuning, especially in low-resource settings where less training data was available. This suggests that leveraging the capabilities of large language models can be particularly beneficial when training data is limited.

The researchers also conducted a meta-analysis of the LLMs' summary evaluation capacities, revealing that the LLMs are not well-aligned with human evaluators when it comes to assessing summary quality. Their expert human evaluation uncovered remaining nuanced performance gaps between the LLM-generated summaries and the fine-tuned models that the LLMs failed to capture.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge that while their findings suggest the potential of using LLMs as a reference for training smaller summarization models, there are still challenges and limitations to this approach.

The inconsistencies and biases in how LLMs evaluate summary quality compared to human judgments highlight the need for further research into understanding and improving the summarization capabilities of large language models.

Additionally, the researchers note that their experiments were conducted on news article datasets, and it remains to be seen how well the LLM-as-reference approach would generalize to other types of text or domains. Exploring the applicability of this technique in diverse settings would be an important area for future work.

Overall, this research provides valuable insights into the potential of leveraging powerful LLMs to enhance the performance of smaller text summarization models. However, it also highlights the need for continued investigation into the capabilities and limitations of LLMs as both summary generators and evaluators.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that using large language models (LLMs) as a reference can significantly improve the performance of smaller text summarization models, both in terms of LLM-based metrics and human evaluations.

The researchers found that training summarization models using LLM-generated summaries as "ground truth" during supervised fine-tuning, as well as using LLMs to provide guidance and feedback through contrastive learning, led to substantial improvements in summary quality.

While the findings suggest the potential of leveraging LLMs to enhance text summarization, the research also reveals that LLMs are not perfect evaluators of summary quality and may miss nuanced differences that are important to human judges.

This work calls for further studies into both the capabilities and limitations of large language models in the context of text summarization, as well as the development of techniques that can effectively harness the power of these models to improve the performance of smaller, more specialized summarization systems.