Abstractive summarisation is notoriously hard to evaluate since standard word-overlap-based metrics are insufficient. We introduce a new evaluation metric which is based on fact-level content weighting, i.e. relating the facts of the document to the facts of the summary. We fol- low the assumption that a good summary will reflect all relevant facts, i.e. the ones present in the ground truth (human-generated refer- ence summary). We confirm this hypothe- sis by showing that our weightings are highly correlated to human perception and compare favourably to the recent manual highlight- based metric of Hardy et al. (2019).

Visual Dialogue involves “understanding” the dialogue history (what has been discussed previously) and the current question (what is asked), in addition to grounding information in the image, to accurately generate the correct response. In this paper, we show that co-attention models which explicitly encode dialoh history outperform models that don’t, achieving state-of-the-art performance (72 % NDCG on val set). However, we also expose shortcomings of the crowdsourcing dataset collection procedure, by showing that dialogue history is indeed only required for a small amount of the data, and that the current evaluation metric encourages generic replies. To that end, we propose a challenging subset (VisdialConv) of the VisdialVal set and the benchmark NDCG of 63%.