Is Summary Useful or Not? An Extrinsic Human Evaluation of Text Summaries on Downstream Tasks

Abstract

Research on automated text summarization typically uses human and automatic evaluation methods. While most recent studies focus on intrinsic evaluation, which assesses the general quality of summaries, e.g. coherence and informativeness, we concentrate on task-based extrinsic evaluation to determine the usefulness of summaries. We incorporate three downstream tasks, namely question answering, text classification, and text similarity assessment, and measure the usefulness of summaries for these tasks by several metrics. Our findings reveal that summaries are generally useful in tasks that require a comprehensive grasp of the text but are less useful in tasks requiring a more specific understanding of the text. We also analyze the usefulness and inherent properties of summaries from different models, and find that fine-tuned models consistently produce more useful summaries across all three tasks. In contrast, zero-shot models tend to lean towards text classification and similarity assessment, providing more general and less detailed summaries. Additionally, we assess the correlation between 14 intrinsic automatic metrics and human judgments. Intrinsic metrics perform well in evaluating summaries for question answering but are less effective in the other two tasks. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on intrinsic metrics for assessing summary performance and usefulness.