Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Speech vs. Transcript: Does It Matter for Human Annotators in Speech Summarization?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.07277 v1 pith:XPJCFKJ2 submitted 2024-08-12 cs.CL cs.HCcs.SDeess.AS

classification cs.CLcs.HCcs.SDeess.AS
keywords summariesannotatorsevaluationhumanspeechlisteningreadingrecording
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Reference summaries for abstractive speech summarization require human annotation, which can be performed by listening to an audio recording or by reading textual transcripts of the recording. In this paper, we examine whether summaries based on annotators listening to the recordings differ from those based on annotators reading transcripts. Using existing intrinsic evaluation based on human evaluation, automatic metrics, LLM-based evaluation, and a retrieval-based reference-free method. We find that summaries are indeed different based on the source modality, and that speech-based summaries are more factually consistent and information-selective than transcript-based summaries. Meanwhile, transcript-based summaries are impacted by recognition errors in the source, and expert-written summaries are more informative and reliable. We make all the collected data and analysis code public(https://github.com/cmu-mlsp/interview_humanssum) to facilitate the reproduction of our work and advance research in this area.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools