To Point or Not to Point: Understanding How Abstractive Summarizers Paraphrase Text
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Abstractive neural summarization models have seen great improvements in recent years, as shown by ROUGE scores of the generated summaries. But despite these improved metrics, there is limited understanding of the strategies different models employ, and how those strategies relate their understanding of language. To understand this better, we run several experiments to characterize how one popular abstractive model, the pointer-generator model of See et al. (2017), uses its explicit copy/generation switch to control its level of abstraction (generation) vs extraction (copying). On an extractive-biased dataset, the model utilizes syntactic boundaries to truncate sentences that are otherwise often copied verbatim. When we modify the copy/generation switch and force the model to generate, only simple paraphrasing abilities are revealed alongside factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. On an abstractive-biased dataset, the model copies infrequently but shows similarly limited abstractive abilities. In line with previous research, these results suggest that abstractive summarization models lack the semantic understanding necessary to generate paraphrases that are both abstractive and faithful to the source document.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2021.
Builds on
15 of 21 references.
References · 15
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,308
- 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,281
- 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,100
- 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 895
- 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 578
- 2018A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documentscited by 477
- 2015A Neural Attention Model for Abstractive Sentence Summarizationcited by 394
- 2020FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 292
- 2020GSum: A General Framework for Guided Neural Abstractive Summarizationcited by 129
- 2019Do Massively Pretrained Language Models Make Better Storytellers?cited by 90
- 2018ROUGE 2.0: Updated and Improved Measures for Evaluation of Summarization Taskscited by 66
3 more
- 2018Learning to Summarize Radiology Findingscited by 54
- 2020Understanding Neural Abstractive Summarization Models via Uncertaintycited by 34
- 2019Quantity doesn't buy quality syntax with neural language modelscited by 25
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 2; 2023: 0; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
5 papers.
- 2022An Empirical Survey on Long Document Summarization: Datasets, Models and Metricscited by 74
- 2021Faithful or Extractive? On Mitigating the Faithfulness-Abstractiveness Trade-off in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 50
- 2022How Far are We from Robust Long Abstractive Summarization?cited by 25
- 2021ComSum: Commit Messages Summarization and Meaning Preservationcited by 3
- 2026LLM-ReSum: A Framework for LLM Reflective Summarization through Self-Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026LLM-ReSum: A Framework for LLM Reflective Summarization through Self-Evaluation28 Apr 2026
- 2022How Far are We from Robust Long Abstractive Summarization?30 Oct 2022
- 2022An Empirical Survey on Long Document Summarization: Datasets, Models and Metrics3 Jul 2022
- 2021Faithful or Extractive? On Mitigating the Faithfulness-Abstractiveness Trade-off in Abstractive Summarization31 Aug 2021
- 2021ComSum: Commit Messages Summarization and Meaning Preservation23 Aug 2021