With Good MT There is No Need For End-to-End: A Case for Translate-then-Summarize Cross-lingual Summarization
<|reference_start|>With Good MT There is No Need For End-to-End: A Case for Translate-then-Summarize Cross-lingual Summarization: Recent work has suggested that end-to-end system designs for cross-lingual summarization are competitive solutions that perform on par or even better than traditional pipelined designs. A closer look at the evidence reveals that this intuition is based on the results of only a handful of languages or using underpowered pipeline baselines. In this work, we compare these two paradigms for cross-lingual summarization on 39 source languages into English and show that a simple \textit{translate-then-summarize} pipeline design consistently outperforms even an end-to-end system with access to enormous amounts of parallel data. For languages where our pipeline model does not perform well, we show that system performance is highly correlated with publicly distributed BLEU scores, allowing practitioners to establish the feasibility of a language pair a priori. Contrary to recent publication trends, our result suggests that the combination of individual progress of monolingual summarization and translation tasks offers better performance than an end-to-end system, suggesting that end-to-end designs should be considered with care.<|reference_end|>
@article{varab2024with,
    title={With Good MT There is No Need For End-to-End: A Case for
  Translate-then-Summarize Cross-lingual Summarization},
    author={Daniel Varab, Christian Hardmeier},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00414},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2409.00414},
    primaryClass={cs.CL}
}