Summary Augmenter: A Text Augmentation Framework to Improve Summarization Quality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data augmentation in Natural Language Processing (NLP) faces various challenges that hinder its widespread adoption, unlike its ever-present usage in the field of vision. It is even more the case for the text summarization task where one should focus on both article and summary. In this paper, we review the effect of back translation augmentation, present the diverse beam search decoding strategy, and masking as a method to generate synthetic data for text summarization. The approaches will be evaluated by ROUGE score, novelty, summary length, and GPT-4 to analyze their effectiveness. Our proposed framework presents multiple combinations of back translation and masking for articles, along with diverse augmentation for summaries. Although applicable to networks of any size, we decided to use BART-large, a relatively smaller model, in order to conduct a larger number of experiments. The experiments demonstrated superior performance across all specified metrics when compared to fine-tuning BART-large on the CNN/Dailymail dataset. Specifically, we showed a significant improvement in novelty; 158% and 56% increase rate for bigrams and unigrams, respectively. It could eliminate some copyright concerns around generating content similar to human writing. Additionally, the GPT-4 assessment indicates that models trained using the augmentation technique tend to capture important information more effectively than the baseline model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it