@inproceedings{cohan-goharian-2016-revisiting,
title = "Revisiting Summarization Evaluation for Scientific Articles",
author = "Cohan, Arman and
Goharian, Nazli",
editor = "Calzolari, Nicoletta and
Choukri, Khalid and
Declerck, Thierry and
Goggi, Sara and
Grobelnik, Marko and
Maegaard, Bente and
Mariani, Joseph and
Mazo, Helene and
Moreno, Asuncion and
Odijk, Jan and
Piperidis, Stelios",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ({LREC}'16)",
month = may,
year = "2016",
address = "Portoro{\v{z}}, Slovenia",
publisher = "European Language Resources Association (ELRA)",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/L16-1130",
pages = "806--813",
abstract = "Evaluation of text summarization approaches have been mostly based on metrics that measure similarities of system generated summaries with a set of human written gold-standard summaries. The most widely used metric in summarization evaluation has been the ROUGE family. ROUGE solely relies on lexical overlaps between the terms and phrases in the sentences; therefore, in cases of terminology variations and paraphrasing, ROUGE is not as effective. Scientific article summarization is one such case that is different from general domain summarization (e.g. newswire data). We provide an extensive analysis of ROUGE{'}s effectiveness as an evaluation metric for scientific summarization; we show that, contrary to the common belief, ROUGE is not much reliable in evaluating scientific summaries. We furthermore show how different variants of ROUGE result in very different correlations with the manual Pyramid scores. Finally, we propose an alternative metric for summarization evaluation which is based on the content relevance between a system generated summary and the corresponding human written summaries. We call our metric SERA (Summarization Evaluation by Relevance Analysis). Unlike ROUGE, SERA consistently achieves high correlations with manual scores which shows its effectiveness in evaluation of scientific article summarization.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="cohan-goharian-2016-revisiting">
<titleInfo>
<title>Revisiting Summarization Evaluation for Scientific Articles</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Arman</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Cohan</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nazli</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Goharian</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2016-05</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nicoletta</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Calzolari</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Khalid</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Choukri</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Thierry</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Declerck</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sara</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Goggi</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Marko</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Grobelnik</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Bente</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Maegaard</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Joseph</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Mariani</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Helene</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Mazo</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Asuncion</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Moreno</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Odijk</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Stelios</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Piperidis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>European Language Resources Association (ELRA)</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Portorož, Slovenia</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Evaluation of text summarization approaches have been mostly based on metrics that measure similarities of system generated summaries with a set of human written gold-standard summaries. The most widely used metric in summarization evaluation has been the ROUGE family. ROUGE solely relies on lexical overlaps between the terms and phrases in the sentences; therefore, in cases of terminology variations and paraphrasing, ROUGE is not as effective. Scientific article summarization is one such case that is different from general domain summarization (e.g. newswire data). We provide an extensive analysis of ROUGE’s effectiveness as an evaluation metric for scientific summarization; we show that, contrary to the common belief, ROUGE is not much reliable in evaluating scientific summaries. We furthermore show how different variants of ROUGE result in very different correlations with the manual Pyramid scores. Finally, we propose an alternative metric for summarization evaluation which is based on the content relevance between a system generated summary and the corresponding human written summaries. We call our metric SERA (Summarization Evaluation by Relevance Analysis). Unlike ROUGE, SERA consistently achieves high correlations with manual scores which shows its effectiveness in evaluation of scientific article summarization.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">cohan-goharian-2016-revisiting</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/L16-1130</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2016-05</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>806</start>
<end>813</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Revisiting Summarization Evaluation for Scientific Articles
%A Cohan, Arman
%A Goharian, Nazli
%Y Calzolari, Nicoletta
%Y Choukri, Khalid
%Y Declerck, Thierry
%Y Goggi, Sara
%Y Grobelnik, Marko
%Y Maegaard, Bente
%Y Mariani, Joseph
%Y Mazo, Helene
%Y Moreno, Asuncion
%Y Odijk, Jan
%Y Piperidis, Stelios
%S Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16)
%D 2016
%8 May
%I European Language Resources Association (ELRA)
%C Portorož, Slovenia
%F cohan-goharian-2016-revisiting
%X Evaluation of text summarization approaches have been mostly based on metrics that measure similarities of system generated summaries with a set of human written gold-standard summaries. The most widely used metric in summarization evaluation has been the ROUGE family. ROUGE solely relies on lexical overlaps between the terms and phrases in the sentences; therefore, in cases of terminology variations and paraphrasing, ROUGE is not as effective. Scientific article summarization is one such case that is different from general domain summarization (e.g. newswire data). We provide an extensive analysis of ROUGE’s effectiveness as an evaluation metric for scientific summarization; we show that, contrary to the common belief, ROUGE is not much reliable in evaluating scientific summaries. We furthermore show how different variants of ROUGE result in very different correlations with the manual Pyramid scores. Finally, we propose an alternative metric for summarization evaluation which is based on the content relevance between a system generated summary and the corresponding human written summaries. We call our metric SERA (Summarization Evaluation by Relevance Analysis). Unlike ROUGE, SERA consistently achieves high correlations with manual scores which shows its effectiveness in evaluation of scientific article summarization.
%U https://aclanthology.org/L16-1130
%P 806-813
Markdown (Informal)
[Revisiting Summarization Evaluation for Scientific Articles](https://aclanthology.org/L16-1130) (Cohan & Goharian, LREC 2016)
ACL