On the Role of Summary Content Units in Text Summarization Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
At the heart of the Pyramid evaluation method for text summarization lie human written summary content units (SCUs). These SCUs are concise sentences that decompose a summary into small facts. Such SCUs can be used to judge the quality of a candidate summary, possibly partially automated via natural language inference (NLI) systems. Interestingly, with the aim to fully automate the Pyramid evaluation, Zhang and Bansal (2021) show that SCUs can be approximated by automatically generated semantic role triplets (STUs). However, several questions currently lack answers, in particular: i) Are there other ways of approximating SCUs that can offer advantages? ii) Under which conditions are SCUs (or their approximations) offering the most value? In this work, we examine two novel strategies to approximate SCUs: generating SCU approximations from AMR meaning representations (SMUs) and from large language models (SGUs), respectively. We find that while STUs and SMUs are competitive, the best approximation quality is achieved by SGUs. We also show through a simple sentence-decomposition baseline (SSUs) that SCUs (and their approximations) offer the most value when ranking short summaries, but may not help as much when ranking systems or longer summaries.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2024.
Builds on
16 of 24 references.
References · 16
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,308
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,259
- 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
- 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
- 2022Repairing the Cracked Foundation: A Survey of Obstacles in Evaluation Practices for Generated Textcited by 154
- 2020Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarizationcited by 144
- 2022Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluationcited by 141
- 2021Finding a Balanced Degree of Automation for Summary Evaluationcited by 43
- 2019Crowdsourcing Lightweight Pyramids for Manual Summary Evaluationcited by 39
- 2021Maximum Bayes Smatch Ensemble Distillation for AMR Parsingcited by 27
4 more
- 2021Ensembling Graph Predictions for AMR Parsingcited by 15
- 2023With a Little Push, NLI Models can Robustly and Efficiently Predict Faithfulnesscited by 13
- 2022Better Smatch = Better Parser? AMR evaluation is not so simple anymorecited by 9
- 2023AMR Parsing is Far from Solved: GrAPES, the Granular AMR Parsing Evaluation Suitecited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2024A Systematic Survey of Text Summarization: From Statistical Methods to Large Language Modelscited by 52
- 2024QAPyramid: Fine-grained Evaluation of Content Selection for Text Summarizationcited by 8
- 2024PARAPHRASUS : A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Paraphrase Detection Modelscited by 7
- 2026SCURank: Ranking Multiple Candidate Summaries with Summary Content Units for Enhanced Summarizationcited by 0
- 2026SCURank: Ranking Multiple Candidate Summaries with Summary Content Units for Enhanced Summarization21 Apr 2026
- 2024QAPyramid: Fine-grained Evaluation of Content Selection for Text Summarization10 Dec 2024
- 2024PARAPHRASUS : A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Paraphrase Detection Models18 Sep 2024
- 2024A Systematic Survey of Text Summarization: From Statistical Methods to Large Language Models17 Jun 2024