Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
51 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
60 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
8 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Exploring the Limits of ChatGPT for Query or Aspect-based Text Summarization (2302.08081v1)

Published 16 Feb 2023 in cs.CL and cs.AI

Abstract: Text summarization has been a crucial problem in NLP for several decades. It aims to condense lengthy documents into shorter versions while retaining the most critical information. Various methods have been proposed for text summarization, including extractive and abstractive summarization. The emergence of LLMs like GPT3 and ChatGPT has recently created significant interest in using these models for text summarization tasks. Recent studies \cite{goyal2022news, zhang2023benchmarking} have shown that LLMs-generated news summaries are already on par with humans. However, the performance of LLMs for more practical applications like aspect or query-based summaries is underexplored. To fill this gap, we conducted an evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on four widely used benchmark datasets, encompassing diverse summaries from Reddit posts, news articles, dialogue meetings, and stories. Our experiments reveal that ChatGPT's performance is comparable to traditional fine-tuning methods in terms of Rouge scores. Moreover, we highlight some unique differences between ChatGPT-generated summaries and human references, providing valuable insights into the superpower of ChatGPT for diverse text summarization tasks. Our findings call for new directions in this area, and we plan to conduct further research to systematically examine the characteristics of ChatGPT-generated summaries through extensive human evaluation.

An Analysis of ChatGPT's Capabilities in Query-Based and Aspect-Based Text Summarization

The paper "Exploring the Limits of ChatGPT for Query or Aspect-based Text Summarization" conducted by Yang et al. addresses the capability of ChatGPT, a LLM, in handling more targeted text summarization tasks such as query-based and aspect-based summarization. While LLMs, including GPT-3 and ChatGPT, have demonstrated proficiency comparable to human capabilities in generic content summarization, their effectiveness in customized summarization tasks remains under-explored.

Overview of Methodology

The researchers conducted a thorough evaluation using ChatGPT across four distinct datasets: Reddit posts, news articles, dialogue meetings, and stories. These experiments incorporated typical evaluation metrics like Rouge scores to benchmark ChatGPT’s performance against traditional fine-tuned models. A particular innovation in this paper includes utilizing ChatGPT’s zero-shot capabilities to generate summaries without additional curated training data.

The paper specifically examined how ChatGPT performs with different types of dataset-specific prompts to produce aspect- and query-based summaries. Data preprocessing steps such as selection and truncation were essential for adapting the inputs to ChatGPT's token restrictions. The researchers also emphasized ChatGPT's flexibility by altering prompts to modify output characteristics, such as length and informativeness, revealing an inherent advantage over fine-tuned models which are typically static in their response characteristics without retraining.

Findings and Numerical Insights

The results are significant as they reveal that ChatGPT can generate summaries with performance metrics on par with those achieved by conventional fine-tuning methods in all considered datasets. When provided with the gold-standard annotations of dataset meetings (QMSum), ChatGPT displayed superior Rouge-1 and Rouge-2 scores and illustrated comparable performance in scenarios like the News domain dataset (NEWTS).

A unique observation in this paper was ChatGPT's ability to maintain high levels of coverage and density while producing more abstractive outputs, particularly in contexts involving longer inputs like QMSum and SQuaLITY. This suggests a potential preference for ChatGPT to generate more abstract summaries with a broader lexical variety. However, in highly condensed and specific scenarios like CovidET, Rouge scores were relatively lower, raising caution over the model's performance for tasks requiring brevity.

Implications for Future Research

The implications of this research illustrate that ChatGPT could play an integral role in practical aspect- and query-based summarization applications. This reflects not only an opportunity to utilize LLM’s capabilities in real-world production environments but also challenges current methodologies in text summarization tasks. The outcomes suggest that enhanced prompt engineering, possibly paired with multiple iterations of conversational adjustments, can further refine ChatGPT’s summarization efficacy.

Future directions in this domain may focus on overcoming current methodological constraints, such as ChatGPT's input token limitations. Integrating models capable of efficiently retrieving and prioritizing input segments for summarization, perhaps adopting a hierarchical approach, could be critical. Furthermore, considering implications concerning non-factual or biased content in LLM outputs, the development of text detection mechanisms will likely become paramount as LLMs gain traction in diverse applications.

In conclusion, Yang et al.'s work reveals that despite the limitations inherent in input processing constraints, ChatGPT presents considerable potential for text summarization beyond traditional paradigms. It prompts a reevaluation of existing methodologies, opening avenues for leveraging LLMs' capabilities more effectively and efficiently moving forward. As a natural next step, a comprehensive human evaluation could provide deeper insights into aligning automated summarization outputs with human expectations and preferences, ultimately shaping future advancements in natural language processing.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Xianjun Yang (37 papers)
  2. Yan Li (505 papers)
  3. Xinlu Zhang (15 papers)
  4. Haifeng Chen (99 papers)
  5. Wei Cheng (175 papers)
Citations (162)