Better Summarization Evaluation with Word Embeddings for ROUGE

ROUGE is a widely adopted, automatic evaluation measure for text summarization. While it has been shown to correlate well with human judgements, it is biased towards surface lexical similarities. This makes it unsuitable for the evaluation of abstractive summarization, or summaries with substantial paraphrasing. We study the effectiveness of word embeddings to overcome this disadvantage of ROUGE. Specifically, instead of measuring lexical overlaps, word embeddings are used to compute the semantic similarity of the words used in summaries instead. Our experimental results show that our proposal is able to achieve better correlations with human judgements when measured with the Spearman and Kendall rank coefficients.Comment: Pre-print - To appear in proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP

LQVSumm: a corpus of linguistic quality violations in multi-document summarization

We present LQVSumm, a corpus of about 2000 automatically created extractive multi-document summaries from the TAC 2011 shared task on Guided Summarization, which we annotated with several types of linguistic quality violations. Examples for such violations include pronouns that lack antecedents or ungrammatical clauses. We give details on the annotation scheme and show that inter-annotator agreement is good given the open-ended nature of the task. The annotated summaries have previously been scored for Readability on a numeric scale by human annotators in the context of the TAC challenge; we show that the number of instances of violations of linguistic quality of a summary correlates with these intuitively assigned numeric scores. On a system-level, the average number of violations marked in a system’s summaries achieves higher correlation with the Readability scores than current supervised state-of-the-art methods for assigning a single readability score to a summary. It is our hope that our corpus facilitates the development of methods that not only judge the linguistic quality of automatically generated summaries as a whole, but which also allow for detecting, labeling, and fixing particular violations in a text