Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization
Authors: Yixin Liu, Alexander R. Fabbri, Jiawen Chen, Yilun Zhao, Simeng Han, Shafiq Joty, Pengfei Liu, Dragomir Radev, Chien-Sheng Wu, Arman Cohan
AI-generated Key Points
- Study title: "Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization"
- Researchers: Yixin Liu, Alexander R. Fabbri, Jiawen Chen, Yilun Zhao, Simeng Han, Shafiq Joty, Pengfei Liu, Dragomir Radev, Chien-Sheng Wu, Arman Cohan
- Purpose: Explore performance of large language models (LLMs) in instruction controllable text summarization
- Methodology:
- Curated an evaluation-only dataset with source article and natural language requirement for desired summary characteristics
- Human evaluations of five LLM-based systems for instruction-following capabilities
- Benchmarking LLM-based automatic evaluation using four protocols and 11 LLMs (40 evaluation methods)
- Findings:
- Instruction controllable text summarization remains challenging for LLMs with factual errors and other mistakes in summaries
- None of the LLM-based evaluation methods achieved strong alignment with human annotators
- Significant performance gaps among different LLMs in both summary generation and evaluation capabilities
- Resources provided for further exploration:
- GitHub repository: https://github.com/yale-nlp/InstruSum
- LLM-evaluators Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/yale-nlp/InstruSumEval
Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) can already achieve strong performance on standard generic summarization benchmarks, their performance on more complex summarization task settings is less studied. Therefore, we benchmark LLMs on instruction controllable text summarization, where the model input consists of both a source article and a natural language requirement for desired summary characteristics. To this end, we curate an evaluation-only dataset for this task setting and conduct human evaluations of five LLM-based systems to assess their instruction-following capabilities in controllable summarization. We then benchmark LLM-based automatic evaluation for this task with 4 different evaluation protocols and 11 LLMs, resulting in 40 evaluation methods. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs, since (1) all LLMs evaluated still make factual and other types of errors in their summaries; (2) no LLM-based evaluation methods can achieve a strong alignment with human annotators when judging the quality of candidate summaries; (3) different LLMs show large performance gaps in summary generation and evaluation capabilities. We make our collected benchmark InstruSum publicly available to facilitate future research in this direction.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
We compare the title and abstract with papers indexed in our database. For arXiv papers, we search within the same category; for DOI and other sources, we search across sources and subjects. You can rerun the search as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.