Cited by 430Speech and dialogue systemsTopic ModelingAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques

SAMSum Corpus: A Human-annotated Dialogue Dataset for Abstractive Summarization

Open access
Gliwa, Bogdan, Mochol, Iwona, Biesek, Maciej, Wawer, Aleksander·2019·Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization

Abstract

This paper introduces the SAMSum Corpus, a new dataset with abstractive dialogue summaries.We investigate the challenges it poses for automated summarization by testing several models and comparing their results with those obtained on a corpus of news articles.We show that model-generated summaries of dialogues achieve higher ROUGE scores than the model-generated summaries of news -in contrast with human evaluators' judgement.This suggests that a challenging task of abstractive dialogue summarization requires dedicated models and non-standard quality measures.To our knowledge, our study is the first attempt to introduce a high-quality chatdialogues corpus, manually annotated with abstractive summarizations, which can be used by the research community for further studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/d19-5409

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous research finds taking the longest sentence as dialogue summarization is a good baseline.

    “Previous research finds taking the longest sentence20 as dialogue summarization is a good baseline.”

    From Aci-bench: a Novel Ambient Clinical Intelligence Dataset for Benchmarking Automatic Visit Note Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

    Section 3 (Dialogues baselines) calls LONGEST-3 the best dialogue baseline, supporting the general idea that selecting long dialogue utterances is useful. But LONGEST-3 selects the three longest utterances, not the single longest sentence claimed here. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Prakhar Ganesh and Saket Dingliwal. 2019. Abstrac- tive summarization of spoken and written conversa- tion. arXiv:1902.01615. · arXiv
  2. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2015. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. CoRR, abs/1508.07909. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gliwa, B., Mochol, I., Biesek, M., & Wawer, A.
Affiliations
Samsung (Poland) (PL)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization
Published
2019
Pages
70-79
OpenAlex
W2989743967
Cited by
424
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 125 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 6
FWCI
13.57
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization (NewSum) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
Keywords
abstractive summarization, dialogue summarization, news summarization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review