Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689884›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting2023

What are the Desired Characteristics of Calibration Sets? Identifying Correlates on Long Form Scientific Summarization.

Griffin Adams, Bichlien H Nguyen, Jake Smith, Yingce Xia, Shufang Xie, Anna Ostropolets, Budhaditya Deb, Yuan-Jyue Chen, Tristan Naumann, Noémie Elhadad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Generating EDU Extracts for Plan-Guided Summary Re-Ranking.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Griffin AdamsComputer Science, Columbia University.
Bichlien H NguyenMicrosoft Research.
Jake SmithMicrosoft Research.
Yingce XiaMicrosoft Research.
Shufang XieMicrosoft Research.
Anna OstropoletsBiomedical Informatics, Columbia University.
Budhaditya DebMicrosoft Research.
Yuan-Jyue ChenMicrosoft Research.
Tristan NaumannMicrosoft Research.
Noémie ElhadadComputer Science, Columbia University.

Funding

Training in Biomedical Informatics at Columbia UniversityT15LM007079 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI NOEMIE ELHADAD, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 1992 to 2026
$28.9M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Summarization models often generate text that is poorly calibrated to quality metrics because they are trained to maximize the likelihood of a single reference (MLE). To address this, recent work has added a calibration step, which exposes a model to its own ranked outputs to improve relevance or, in a separate line of work, contrasts positive and negative sets to improve faithfulness. While effective, much of this work has focused on

Identifiers

PMID38689884
PMCPMC11059202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.