Summarization evaluation remains an open research problem: current metrics such as ROUGE are known to be limited and to correlate poorly with human judgments. To alleviate this issue, recent work has proposed evaluation metrics which rely on question answering models to assess whether a summary contains all the relevant information in its source document. Though promising, the proposed approaches have so far failed to correlate better than ROUGE with human judgments. In this paper, we extend previous approaches and propose a unified framework, named QuestEval. In contrast to established metrics such as ROUGE or BERTScore, QuestEval does not require any ground-truth reference. Nonetheless, QuestEval substantially improves the correlation with human judgments over four evaluation dimensions (consistency, coherence, fluency, and relevance), as shown in the extensive experiments we report.
翻译:总结评价仍然是一个开放的研究问题:据知,目前的指标,如ROUGE(ROUGE)是有限的,与人类判断不相干。为了缓解这一问题,最近的工作提出了评价指标,这些评价指标依靠问答模型来评估摘要是否包含其原始文件中的所有相关信息。虽然很有希望,但拟议的方法迄今没有比ROUGE(ROUGE)更好地与人类判断联系起来。在本文件中,我们推广了以前的方法,并提出了一个称为QuestEval的统一框架。与RoOUGE(RETScore)或BERTScore(BERTScore)等既定指标相比,QuestEval(QuestEval)并不需要任何地面真相参考。然而,如我们报告的广泛实验所示,QuestEval(QuestEval)在四个评价层面(一致性、一致性、一致性、流利度和相关性)上大大改善了与人类判断的相关性。