Semi-Supervised Dialogue Abstractive Summarization via High-Quality Pseudolabel Selection
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.025 |
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