@inproceedings{elaraby-etal-2024-adding,
    title = "Adding Argumentation into Human Evaluation of Long Document Abstractive Summarization: A Case Study on Legal Opinions",
    author = "Elaraby, Mohamed  and
      Xu, Huihui  and
      Gray, Morgan  and
      Ashley, Kevin  and
      Litman, Diane",
    editor = "Balloccu, Simone  and
      Belz, Anya  and
      Huidrom, Rudali  and
      Reiter, Ehud  and
      Sedoc, Joao  and
      Thomson, Craig",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Human Evaluation of NLP Systems (HumEval) @ LREC-COLING 2024",
    month = may,
    year = "2024",
    address = "Torino, Italia",
    publisher = "ELRA and ICCL",
    url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.humeval-1.3",
    pages = "28--35",
    abstract = "Human evaluation remains the gold standard for assessing abstractive summarization. However, current practices often prioritize constructing evaluation guidelines for fluency, coherence, and factual accuracy, overlooking other critical dimensions. In this paper, we investigate argument coverage in abstractive summarization by focusing on long legal opinions, where summaries must effectively encapsulate the document{'}s argumentative nature. We introduce a set of human-evaluation guidelines to evaluate generated summaries based on argumentative coverage. These guidelines enable us to assess three distinct summarization models, studying the influence of including argument roles in summarization. Furthermore, we utilize these evaluation scores to benchmark automatic summarization metrics against argument coverage, providing insights into the effectiveness of automated evaluation methods.",
}

Human evaluation remains the gold standard for assessing abstractive summarization. However, current practices often prioritize constructing evaluation guidelines for fluency, coherence, and factual accuracy, overlooking other critical dimensions. In this paper, we investigate argument coverage in abstractive summarization by focusing on long legal opinions, where summaries must effectively encapsulate the document{'}s argumentative nature. We introduce a set of human-evaluation guidelines to evaluate generated summaries based on argumentative coverage. These guidelines enable us to assess three distinct summarization models, studying the influence of including argument roles in summarization. Furthermore, we utilize these evaluation scores to benchmark automatic summarization metrics against argument coverage, providing insights into the effectiveness of automated evaluation methods.
Elaraby, Mohamed Xu, Huihui Gray, Morgan Ashley, Kevin Litman, Diane
Adding Argumentation into Human Evaluation of Long Document Abstractive Summarization: A Case Study on Legal Opinions