Towards Question-Answering as an Automatic Metric for Evaluating the Content Quality of a Summary

Recently, there has been growing interest in using question-answering (QA) models to evaluate the content quality of summaries. While previous work has shown initial promising results in this direction, their experimentation has been limited, leading to a poor understanding of the utility of QA in evaluating summary content. In this work, we perform an extensive evaluation of a QA-based metric for summary content quality, calculating its performance with today's state-of-the-art models as well as estimating its potential upper-bound performance. We analyze a proposed metric, QAEval, which is more widely applicable than previous work. We show that QAEval already achieves state-of-the-art performance at scoring summarization systems, beating all other metrics including the gold-standard Pyramid Method, while its performance on individual summaries is at best competitive to other automatic metrics. Through a careful analysis of each component of QAEval, we identify the performance bottlenecks and estimate that with human-level performance, QAEval's summary-level results have the potential to approach that of the Pyramid Method.