What Have We Achieved on Text Summarization?

October 09, 2020 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Dandan Huang, Leyang Cui, Sen Yang, Guangsheng Bao, Kun Wang, Jun Xie, Yue Zhang arXiv ID 2010.04529 Category cs.CL: Computation & Language Citations 116 Venue Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Deep learning has led to significant improvement in text summarization with various methods investigated and improved ROUGE scores reported over the years. However, gaps still exist between summaries produced by automatic summarizers and human professionals. Aiming to gain more understanding of summarization systems with respect to their strengths and limits on a fine-grained syntactic and semantic level, we consult the Multidimensional Quality Metric(MQM) and quantify 8 major sources of errors on 10 representative summarization models manually. Primarily, we find that 1) under similar settings, extractive summarizers are in general better than their abstractive counterparts thanks to strength in faithfulness and factual-consistency; 2) milestone techniques such as copy, coverage and hybrid extractive/abstractive methods do bring specific improvements but also demonstrate limitations; 3) pre-training techniques, and in particular sequence-to-sequence pre-training, are highly effective for improving text summarization, with BART giving the best results.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Computation & Language

๐ŸŒ… ๐ŸŒ… Old Age

Attention Is All You Need

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, ... (+6 more)

cs.CL ๐Ÿ› NeurIPS ๐Ÿ“š 166.0K cites 9 years ago

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted