Hierarchical Attention Adapter for Abstractive Dialogue Summarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dialogue summarization is still a very challenging task even for large language models (LLMs).On the one hand, some previous approaches have pre-trained language models specifically for dialogue understanding and summarization, but they have been limited to relatively small language models such as BART and T5.On the other hand, other works have tried to directly exploit the dialogue semantics and discourse structures in their modeling effort, but by construction, they require access to those structures, which is in itself a largely unsolved problem.In this paper, we synergistically combine these two ideas in an approach that can be seamlessly integrated into the decoder-only architecture adopted by the most state-of-the-art LLMs.In particular, our novel solution leverages the parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) paradigm to model the hierarchical structure of dialogues, where input sequences are naturally segmented into dialogue turns, and then fine-tune the model for abstractive summarization.From experiments on two datasets, we find that Hierarchical Attention Adapter outperforms all baseline adapter methods on SummScreen, where our approach can also be combined with LoRA to achieve the best performance on SamSum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".