Ankita Gupta

h-index9
2papers
350citations

2 Papers

0.5CLNov 15, 2023
Evaluating Robustness of Dialogue Summarization Models in the Presence of Naturally Occurring Variations

Ankita Gupta, Chulaka Gunasekara, Hui Wan et al. · ibm-research

Dialogue summarization task involves summarizing long conversations while preserving the most salient information. Real-life dialogues often involve naturally occurring variations (e.g., repetitions, hesitations) and existing dialogue summarization models suffer from performance drop on such conversations. In this study, we systematically investigate the impact of such variations on state-of-the-art dialogue summarization models using publicly available datasets. To simulate real-life variations, we introduce two types of perturbations: utterance-level perturbations that modify individual utterances with errors and language variations, and dialogue-level perturbations that add non-informative exchanges (e.g., repetitions, greetings). We conduct our analysis along three dimensions of robustness: consistency, saliency, and faithfulness, which capture different aspects of the summarization model's performance. We find that both fine-tuned and instruction-tuned models are affected by input variations, with the latter being more susceptible, particularly to dialogue-level perturbations. We also validate our findings via human evaluation. Finally, we investigate if the robustness of fine-tuned models can be improved by training them with a fraction of perturbed data and observe that this approach is insufficient to address robustness challenges with current models and thus warrants a more thorough investigation to identify better solutions. Overall, our work highlights robustness challenges in dialogue summarization and provides insights for future research.

1.0CLApr 23, 2024Code
CASPR: Automated Evaluation Metric for Contrastive Summarization

Nirupan Ananthamurugan, Dat Duong, Philip George et al.

Summarizing comparative opinions about entities (e.g., hotels, phones) from a set of source reviews, often referred to as contrastive summarization, can considerably aid users in decision making. However, reliably measuring the contrastiveness of the output summaries without relying on human evaluations remains an open problem. Prior work has proposed token-overlap based metrics, Distinctiveness Score, to measure contrast which does not take into account the sensitivity to meaning-preserving lexical variations. In this work, we propose an automated evaluation metric CASPR to better measure contrast between a pair of summaries. Our metric is based on a simple and light-weight method that leverages natural language inference (NLI) task to measure contrast by segmenting reviews into single-claim sentences and carefully aggregating NLI scores between them to come up with a summary-level score. We compare CASPR with Distinctiveness Score and a simple yet powerful baseline based on BERTScore. Our results on a prior dataset CoCoTRIP demonstrate that CASPR can more reliably capture the contrastiveness of the summary pairs compared to the baselines.