@inproceedings{wang-etal-2023-automated,
title = "Automated Metrics for Medical Multi-Document Summarization Disagree with Human Evaluations",
author = "Wang, Lucy Lu and
Otmakhova, Yulia and
DeYoung, Jay and
Truong, Thinh Hung and
Kuehl, Bailey and
Bransom, Erin and
Wallace, Byron",
editor = "Rogers, Anna and
Boyd-Graber, Jordan and
Okazaki, Naoaki",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
month = jul,
year = "2023",
address = "Toronto, Canada",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.549",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.549",
pages = "9871--9889",
abstract = "Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="wang-etal-2023-automated">
<titleInfo>
<title>Automated Metrics for Medical Multi-Document Summarization Disagree with Human Evaluations</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Lucy</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Lu</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yulia</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Otmakhova</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jay</namePart>
<namePart type="family">DeYoung</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Thinh</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Hung</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Truong</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Bailey</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Kuehl</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Erin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bransom</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Byron</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wallace</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2023-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Anna</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Rogers</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jordan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Boyd-Graber</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Naoaki</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Okazaki</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Toronto, Canada</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">wang-etal-2023-automated</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.549</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.549</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2023-07</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>9871</start>
<end>9889</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Automated Metrics for Medical Multi-Document Summarization Disagree with Human Evaluations
%A Wang, Lucy Lu
%A Otmakhova, Yulia
%A DeYoung, Jay
%A Truong, Thinh Hung
%A Kuehl, Bailey
%A Bransom, Erin
%A Wallace, Byron
%Y Rogers, Anna
%Y Boyd-Graber, Jordan
%Y Okazaki, Naoaki
%S Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
%D 2023
%8 July
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Toronto, Canada
%F wang-etal-2023-automated
%X Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.
%R 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.549
%U https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.549
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.549
%P 9871-9889
Markdown (Informal)
[Automated Metrics for Medical Multi-Document Summarization Disagree with Human Evaluations](https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.549) (Wang et al., ACL 2023)
ACL