BooookScore: A systematic exploration of book-length summarization in the era of LLMs
Tags: machinelearning, ai, beginners, datascience
Published: 2024-04-16 22:19:08

*This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called [BooookScore: A systematic exploration of book-length summarization in the era of LLMs](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/booookscore-systematic-exploration-book-length-summarization-era). If you like these kinds of analysis, you should subscribe to the [AImodels.fyi newsletter](https://aimodels.substack.com) or follow me on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/mikeyoung44).*

## Overview

• This paper explores the challenges of summarizing book-length documents using large language models (LLMs).

• It presents the first study on the coherence of LLM-based book-length summarizers, evaluating two prompting workflows: hierarchically merging chunk-level summaries and incrementally updating a running summary.

• The authors develop a new automatic metric, BookScore, to measure the coherence of LLM-generated summaries and systematically evaluate the impact of various parameters.

• The paper finds that closed-source LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 2 produce more coherent summaries than open-source models, while the LLaMA 2 model lags behind.

## Plain English Explanation

Summarizing long books and documents (over 100,000 words) is a challenging task for large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 and LLaMA 2. This is because LLMs have a limited "context window" - they can only process a certain amount of text at a time. To summarize a long document, the text needs to be broken into smaller chunks, and the LLM has to then combine and condense those chunk-level summaries.

The researchers in this paper looked at two different ways of doing this - [**hierarchically merging chunk-level summaries**](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/characterizing-multimodal-long-form-summarization-case-study) and [**incrementally updating a running summary**](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/adapted-large-language-models-can-outperform-medical). They got human evaluators to carefully examine the coherence (how well the different parts flow together) of summaries generated by different LLMs using these methods.

The researchers found that closed-source, proprietary LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 2 produced more coherent summaries than open-source models like LLaMA 2. They also developed a new automatic metric called BookScore that can measure coherence without needing expensive human evaluations.

Overall, this research highlights the challenges of using LLMs for summarizing long documents, and shows that more work is needed to improve their ability to generate coherent, high-quality summaries of book-length content.

## Technical Explanation

The paper addresses the challenge of summarizing book-length documents (over 100,000 tokens) using large language models (LLMs). LLMs have a limited "context window" and struggle to maintain coherence when summarizing long texts. To address this, the researchers explored two prompting workflows:

1. [**Hierarchically merging chunk-level summaries**](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/characterizing-multimodal-long-form-summarization-case-study): Breaking the input document into smaller chunks, generating summaries for each chunk, and then merging those chunk-level summaries.

2. [**Incrementally updating a running summary**](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/adapted-large-language-models-can-outperform-medical): Generating a summary for the first chunk, then updating that summary as additional chunks are processed.

The researchers obtained 1,193 human annotations on summaries generated by GPT-4 for 100 recently-published books. This allowed them to identify eight common types of coherence errors made by LLMs.

To avoid the high cost and time of human evaluation, the researchers developed an automatic metric called BookScore. BookScore measures the proportion of sentences in a summary that do not contain any of the identified coherence error types. They found that BookScore has high agreement with human annotations, allowing them to systematically evaluate the impact of factors like chunk size and base LLM.

The key findings are:

- Closed-source LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 2 produce summaries with higher BookScore than open-source models like LLaMA 2.
- While LLaMA 2 lags behind, the Mixtral model achieves performance on par with GPT-3.5-Turbo.
- Incremental updating yields lower BookScore but higher level of detail than hierarchical merging, a trade-off sometimes preferred by annotators.

## Critical Analysis

The paper makes a valuable contribution by being the first to systematically study the coherence of LLM-based book-length summarizers. The identification of common coherence error types and the development of the BookScore metric are particularly noteworthy.

However, the paper also acknowledges several limitations:

1. The study is limited to 100 recently-published books, which may not be representative of the full diversity of book-length content.

2. The human evaluation process, while rigorous, is still relatively small in scale compared to the vast amount of book-length content that exists.

3. The paper does not address the potential for [**biases and false attribution errors**](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/limitations-large-language-models-llms-false-attribution) in LLM-generated summaries, which could be an important area for further research.

4. The [**fine-tuning of LLMs for specific summarization tasks**](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/fine-tuning-large-language-models-automated-diagnostic) is not explored, and could potentially lead to improvements in coherence and accuracy.

Overall, this paper provides a solid foundation for understanding the challenges of book-length summarization using LLMs, but more research is needed to fully address the limitations and further improve the performance of these models.

## Conclusion

This paper presents the first comprehensive study on the coherence of LLM-based book-length summarizers. The researchers developed a new automatic metric, BookScore, to measure coherence and used it to systematically evaluate the performance of various LLMs on this task.

The key finding is that closed-source LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 2 outperform open-source models in terms of summary coherence, although the Mixtral model achieves competitive results. The paper also highlights the trade-offs between hierarchical merging and incremental updating of summaries, with the latter providing more detailed but less coherent results.

This research is an important step towards improving the ability of LLMs to summarize long-form content, which is crucial for many real-world applications. By identifying common coherence issues and developing new evaluation metrics, the paper lays the groundwork for further advancements in this challenging area of natural language processing.

**If you enjoyed this summary, consider subscribing to the [AImodels.fyi newsletter](https://aimodels.substack.com) or following me on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/mikeyoung44) for more AI and machine learning content.**