290,243 research outputs found
Unsupervised Opinion Summarization with Noising and Denoising
The supervised training of high-capacity models on large datasets containing
hundreds of thousands of document-summary pairs is critical to the recent
success of deep learning techniques for abstractive summarization.
Unfortunately, in most domains (other than news) such training data is not
available and cannot be easily sourced. In this paper we enable the use of
supervised learning for the setting where there are only documents available
(e.g.,~product or business reviews) without ground truth summaries. We create a
synthetic dataset from a corpus of user reviews by sampling a review,
pretending it is a summary, and generating noisy versions thereof which we
treat as pseudo-review input. We introduce several linguistically motivated
noise generation functions and a summarization model which learns to denoise
the input and generate the original review. At test time, the model accepts
genuine reviews and generates a summary containing salient opinions, treating
those that do not reach consensus as noise. Extensive automatic and human
evaluation shows that our model brings substantial improvements over both
abstractive and extractive baselines.Comment: ACL 202
Fair Abstractive Summarization of Diverse Perspectives
People from different social and demographic groups express diverse
perspectives and conflicting opinions on a broad set of topics such as product
reviews, healthcare, law, and politics. A fair summary should provide a
comprehensive coverage of diverse perspectives without underrepresenting
certain groups. However, current work in summarization metrics and Large
Language Models (LLMs) evaluation has not explored fair abstractive
summarization. In this paper, we systematically investigate fair abstractive
summarization for user-generated data. We first formally define fairness in
abstractive summarization as not underrepresenting perspectives of any groups
of people and propose four reference-free automatic metrics measuring the
differences between target and source perspectives. We evaluate five LLMs,
including three GPT models, Alpaca, and Claude, on six datasets collected from
social media, online reviews, and recorded transcripts. Experiments show that
both the model-generated and the human-written reference summaries suffer from
low fairness. We conduct a comprehensive analysis of the common factors
influencing fairness and propose three simple but effective methods to
alleviate unfair summarization. Our dataset and code are available at
https://github.com/psunlpgroup/FairSumm.Comment: 19 pages, 10 figure
- …