The performance of text summarization has been greatly boosted by pre-trained language models. A main concern of existing methods is that most generated summaries are not factually inconsistent with their source documents.To alleviate the problem, many efforts have focused on developing effective factuality evaluation metrics based on natural language inference, question answering, and syntactic dependency et al. However, these approaches are limited by either their high computational complexity or dependence on annotated data. Most recently, large language models(LLMs) such as ChatGPT have shown excellent performance in not only text generation but also language comprehension. In this paper, we particularly explore ChatGPT's ability to evaluate factual inconsistency under a zero-shot setting by examining it on both coarse-grained and fine-grained evaluation tasks including binary entailment inference, summary ranking, and consistency rating. Experimental results indicate that ChatGPT generally outperforms previous evaluation metrics across the three tasks, indicating its great potential for factual inconsistency evaluation. However, a closer inspection of ChatGPT's output reveals certain limitations including its preference for more lexically similar candidates, false reasoning, and inadequate understanding of instructions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Different from general documents, it is recognised that the ease with which people can understand a biomedical text is eminently varied, owing to the highly technical nature of biomedical documents and the variance of readers' domain knowledge. However, existing biomedical document summarization systems have paid little attention to readability control, leaving users with summaries that are incompatible with their levels of expertise. In recognition of this urgent demand, we introduce a new task of readability controllable summarization for biomedical documents, which aims to recognise users' readability demands and generate summaries that better suit their needs: technical summaries for experts and plain language summaries (PLS) for laymen. To establish this task, we construct a corpus consisting of biomedical papers with technical summaries and PLSs written by the authors, and benchmark multiple advanced controllable abstractive and extractive summarization models based on pre-trained language models (PLMs) with prevalent controlling and generation techniques. Moreover, we propose a novel masked language model (MLM) based metric and its variant to effectively evaluate the readability discrepancy between lay and technical summaries. Experimental results from automated and human evaluations show that though current control techniques allow for a certain degree of readability adjustment during generation, the performance of existing controllable summarization methods is far from desirable in this task.