Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Rethinking Scientific Summarization Evaluation: Grounding Explainable Metrics on Facet-aware Benchmark

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 2402.14359 v2 pith:E3NDEHVH submitted 2024-02-22 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords scientificevaluationllmssummarizationfacet-awareapproachbeenbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

The summarization capabilities of pretrained and large language models (LLMs) have been widely validated in general areas, but their use in scientific corpus, which involves complex sentences and specialized knowledge, has been less assessed. This paper presents conceptual and experimental analyses of scientific summarization, highlighting the inadequacies of traditional evaluation methods, such as $n$-gram, embedding comparison, and QA, particularly in providing explanations, grasping scientific concepts, or identifying key content. Subsequently, we introduce the Facet-aware Metric (FM), employing LLMs for advanced semantic matching to evaluate summaries based on different aspects. This facet-aware approach offers a thorough evaluation of abstracts by decomposing the evaluation task into simpler subtasks.Recognizing the absence of an evaluation benchmark in this domain, we curate a Facet-based scientific summarization Dataset (FD) with facet-level annotations. Our findings confirm that FM offers a more logical approach to evaluating scientific summaries. In addition, fine-tuned smaller models can compete with LLMs in scientific contexts, while LLMs have limitations in learning from in-context information in scientific domains. This suggests an area for future enhancement of LLMs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. GRASP: Graph-Reasoning Aided Survey Planning for High-Fidelity Related Work Generation

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GRASP generates related-work sections that match human discourse roles, citation intents, and groupings by combining a Graph of Thoughts, an Argument-Counterargument Planning Network, and Steiner-tree pruning.

Pith tools