Semi-Supervised Dialogue Abstractive Summarization via High-Quality Pseudolabel Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semi-supervised dialogue summarization (SSDS) leverages model-generated summaries to reduce reliance on human-labeled data and improve the performance of summarization models. While addressing label noise, previous works on semi-supervised learning primarily focus on natural language understanding tasks, assuming each sample has a unique label. However, these methods are not directly applicable to SSDS, as it is a generative task, and each dialogue can be summarized in different ways. In this work, we propose a novel scoring approach, SiCF, which encapsulates three primary dimensions of summarization model quality: Semantic invariance (indicative of model confidence), Coverage (factual recall), and Faithfulness (factual precision). Using the SiCF score, we select unlabeled dialogues with high-quality generated summaries to train summarization models. Comprehensive experiments on three public datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of SiCF scores in uncertainty estimation and semi-supervised learning for dialogue summarization tasks. Our code is available at \url{https://github.com/amazon-science/summarization-sicf-score}.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".