Allowing users to interact with multi-document summarizers is a promising direction towards improving and customizing summary results. Different ideas for interactive summarization have been proposed in previous work but these solutions are highly divergent and incomparable. In this paper, we develop an end-to-end evaluation framework for interactive summarization, focusing on expansion-based interaction, which considers the accumulating information along a user session. Our framework includes a procedure of collecting real user sessions, as well as evaluation measures relying on summarization standards, but adapted to reflect interaction. All of our solutions and resources are available publicly as a benchmark, allowing comparison of future developments in interactive summarization, and spurring progress in its methodological evaluation. We demonstrate the use of our framework by evaluating and comparing baseline implementations that we developed for this purpose, which will serve as part of our benchmark. Our extensive experimentation and analysis motivate the proposed evaluation framework design and support its viability.

We introduce iFᴀᴄᴇᴛSᴜᴍ, a web application for exploring topical document collections. iFᴀᴄᴇᴛSᴜᴍ integrates interactive summarization together with faceted search, by providing a novel faceted navigation scheme that yields abstractive summaries for the user’s selections. This approach offers both a comprehensive overview as well as particular details regard-ing subtopics of choice. The facets are automatically produced based on cross-document coreference pipelines, rendering generic concepts, entities and statements surfacing in the source texts. We analyze the effectiveness of our application through small-scale user studies that suggest the usefulness of our tool.

Conducting a manual evaluation is considered an essential part of summary evaluation methodology. Traditionally, the Pyramid protocol, which exhaustively compares system summaries to references, has been perceived as very reliable, providing objective scores. Yet, due to the high cost of the Pyramid method and the required expertise, researchers resorted to cheaper and less thorough manual evaluation methods, such as Responsiveness and pairwise comparison, attainable via crowdsourcing. We revisit the Pyramid approach, proposing a lightweight sampling-based version that is crowdsourcable. We analyze the performance of our method in comparison to original expert-based Pyramid evaluations, showing higher correlation relative to the common Responsiveness method. We release our crowdsourced Summary-Content-Units, along with all crowdsourcing scripts, for future evaluations.

Practical summarization systems are expected to produce summaries of varying lengths, per user needs. While a couple of early summarization benchmarks tested systems across multiple summary lengths, this practice was mostly abandoned due to the assumed cost of producing reference summaries of multiple lengths. In this paper, we raise the research question of whether reference summaries of a single length can be used to reliably evaluate system summaries of multiple lengths. For that, we have analyzed a couple of datasets as a case study, using several variants of the ROUGE metric that are standard in summarization evaluation. Our findings indicate that the evaluation protocol in question is indeed competitive. This result paves the way to practically evaluating varying-length summaries with simple, possibly existing, summarization benchmarks.

We present a novel interactive summarization system that is based on abstractive summarization, derived from a recent consolidated knowledge representation for multiple texts. We incorporate a couple of interaction mechanisms, providing a bullet-style summary while allowing to attain the most important information first and interactively drill down to more specific details. A usability study of our implementation, for event news tweets, suggests the utility of our approach for text exploration.