Research on automated text summarization typically uses human and automatic evaluation methods. While most recent studies focus on intrinsic evaluation, which assesses the general quality of summaries, e.g. coherence and informativeness, we concentrate on task-based extrinsic evaluation to determine the usefulness of summaries. We incorporate three downstream tasks, namely question answering, text classification, and text similarity assessment, and measure the usefulness of summaries for these tasks by several metrics. Our findings reveal that summaries are generally useful in tasks that require a comprehensive grasp of the text but are less useful in tasks requiring a more specific understanding of the text. We also analyze the usefulness and inherent properties of summaries from different models, and find that fine-tuned models consistently produce more useful summaries across all three tasks. In contrast, zero-shot models tend to lean towards text classification and similarity assessment, providing more general and less detailed summaries. Additionally, we assess the correlation between 14 intrinsic automatic metrics and human judgments. Intrinsic metrics perform well in evaluating summaries for question answering but are less effective in the other two tasks. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on intrinsic metrics for assessing summary performance and usefulness.

The rampant proliferation of large language models, fluent enough to generate text indistinguishable from human-written language, gives unprecedented importance to the detection of machine-generated text. This work is motivated by an important research question: How will the detectors of machine-generated text perform on outputs of a new generator, that the detectors were not trained on? We begin by collecting generation data from a wide range of LLMs, and train neural detectors on data from each generator and test its performance on held-out generators. While none of the detectors can generalize to all generators, we observe a consistent and interesting pattern that the detectors trained on data from a medium-size LLM can zero-shot generalize to the larger version. As a concrete application, we demonstrate that robust detectors can be built on an ensemble of training data from medium-sized models.

This paper demonstrates that word sense disambiguation (WSD) can improve neural machine translation (NMT) by widening the source context considered when modeling the senses of potentially ambiguous words. We first introduce three adaptive clustering algorithms for WSD, based on k-means, Chinese restaurant processes, and random walks, which are then applied to large word contexts represented in a low-rank space and evaluated on SemEval shared-task data. We then learn word vectors jointly with sense vectors defined by our best WSD method, within a state-of-the-art NMT system. We show that the concatenation of these vectors, and the use of a sense selection mechanism based on the weighted average of sense vectors, outperforms several baselines including sense-aware ones. This is demonstrated by translation on five language pairs. The improvements are more than 1 BLEU point over strong NMT baselines, +4% accuracy over all ambiguous nouns and verbs, or +20% when scored manually over several challenging words.

We propose a method to decide whether two occurrences of the same noun in a source text should be translated consistently, i.e. using the same noun in the target text as well. We train and test classifiers that predict consistent translations based on lexical, syntactic, and semantic features. We first evaluate the accuracy of our classifiers intrinsically, in terms of the accuracy of consistency predictions, over a subset of the UN Corpus. Then, we also evaluate them in combination with phrase-based statistical MT systems for Chinese-to-English and German-to-English. We compare the automatic post-editing of noun translations with the re-ranking of the translation hypotheses based on the classifiers’ output, and also use these methods in combination. This improves over the baseline and closes up to 50% of the gap in BLEU scores between the baseline and an oracle classifier.