Enhancing Argument Summarization: Prioritizing Exhaustiveness in Key Point Generation and Introducing an Automatic Coverage Evaluation Metric
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of social media platforms has given rise to the amount of online debates and arguments. Consequently, the need for automatic summarization methods for such debates is imperative, however this area of summarization is rather understudied. The Key Point Analysis (KPA) task formulates argument summarization as representing the summary of a large collection of arguments in the form of concise sentences in bullet-style format, called key points. A sub-task of KPA, called Key Point Generation (KPG), focuses on generating these key points given the arguments. This paper introduces a novel extractive approach for key point generation, that outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods for the task. Our method utilizes an extractive clustering based approach that offers concise, high quality generated key points with higher coverage of reference summaries, and less redundant outputs. In addition, we show that the existing evaluation metrics for summarization such as ROUGE are incapable of differentiating between generated key points of different qualities. To this end, we propose a new evaluation metric for assessing the generated key points by their coverage. Our code can be accessed online.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".