mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluate Summarization in Fine-Granularity: Auto Evaluation with LLM

arXiv 2412.19906 ↗First posted 27 Dec 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Due to the exponential growth of information and the need for efficient information consumption the task of summarization has gained paramount importance. Evaluating summarization accurately and objectively presents significant challenges, particularly when dealing with long and unstructured texts rich in content. Existing methods, such as ROUGE (Lin, 2004) and embedding similarities, often yield scores that have low correlation with human judgements and are also not intuitively understandable, making it difficult to gauge the true quality of the summaries. LLMs can mimic human in giving subjective reviews but subjective scores are hard to interpret and justify. They can be easily manipulated by altering the models and the tones of the prompts. In this paper, we introduce a novel evaluation methodology and tooling designed to address these challenges, providing a more comprehensive, accurate and interpretable assessment of summarization outputs. Our method (SumAutoEval) proposes and evaluates metrics at varying granularity levels, giving objective scores on 4 key dimensions such as completeness, correctness, Alignment and readability. We empirically demonstrate, that SumAutoEval enhances the understanding of output quality with better human correlation.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Dec 2024.

Builds on

16 of 21 references.

References · 16

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  4. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  5. 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,259
  6. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  7. 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 724
  8. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  9. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
  10. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  11. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
  12. 2022Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generationcited by 264
4 more
  1. 2019Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluationcited by 189
  2. 2023Human-like Summarization Evaluation with ChatGPTcited by 126
  3. 2023A Critical Evaluation of Evaluations for Long-form Question Answeringcited by 111
  4. 2023Sub-Sentence Encoder: Contrastive Learning of Propositional Semantic Representationscited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.