AllSummedUp: un framework open-source pour comparer les metriques d'evaluation de resume
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper investigates reproducibility challenges in automatic text summarization evaluation. Based on experiments conducted across six representative metrics ranging from classical approaches like ROUGE to recent LLM-based methods (G-Eval, SEval-Ex), we highlight significant discrepancies between reported performances in the literature and those observed in our experimental setting. We introduce a unified, open-source framework, applied to the SummEval dataset and designed to support fair and transparent comparison of evaluation metrics. Our results reveal a structural trade-off: metrics with the highest alignment with human judgments tend to be computationally intensive and less stable across runs. Beyond comparative analysis, this study highlights key concerns about relying on LLMs for evaluation, stressing their randomness, technical dependencies, and limited reproducibility. We advocate for more robust evaluation protocols including exhaustive documentation and methodological standardization to ensure greater reliability in automatic summarization assessment.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 9 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Aug 2025.
Builds on
5 of 9 references.
References · 5
- 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 584
- 2021QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluationcited by 244
- 2020Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarizationcited by 145
- 2024Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?cited by 141
- 2025SEval-Ex: A Statement-Level Framework for Explainable Summarization Evaluationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.