Krtin Kumar, J. Cheung

NAACL

Paper

Abstract

Neural abstractive summarizers generate summary texts using a language model conditioned on the input source text, and have recently achieved high ROUGE scores on benchmark summarization datasets. We investigate how they achieve this performance with respect to human-written gold-standard abstracts, and whether the systems are able to understand deeper syntactic and semantic structures. We generate a set of contrastive summaries which are perturbed, deficient versions of human-written summaries, and test whether existing neural summarizers score them more highly than the human-written summaries. We analyze their performance on different datasets and find that these systems fail to understand the source text, in a majority of the cases.