Evaluates the quality of abstractive summaries for long scientific documents by measuring n-gram overlap between generated text and reference abstracts. Use when the user wants to benchmark on arXiv, PubMed, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports ROUGE-1.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Long Doc Rouge Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-long-doc-rouge-eval)
---
name: long-doc-rouge-eval
description: Evaluates the quality of abstractive summaries for long scientific documents by measuring n-gram overlap between generated text and reference abstracts. Use when the user wants to benchmark on arXiv, PubMed, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports ROUGE-1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 1804.05685
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# long-doc-rouge-eval
> A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documents — Cohan et al. (2018) (arXiv:1804.05685, 2018)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the quality of abstractive summaries for long scientific documents by measuring n-gram overlap between generated text and reference abstracts.
## Datasets
- **arXiv** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **PubMed** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `ROUGE-1` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Full-length F-1 score based on unigram overlap between generated summary and reference abstract. Tokens are lowercased and tokenized using spaCy.
- `ROUGE-2` — range: percent
- Full-length F-1 score based on bigram overlap, computed with the same lowercased spaCy tokenization.
- `ROUGE-3` — range: percent
- Full-length F-1 score based on trigram overlap, computed with the same lowercased spaCy tokenization.
- `ROUGE-L` — range: percent
- Full-length F-1 score based on the longest common subsequence between generated and reference summaries, computed with the same lowercased spaCy tokenization.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Long scientific documents (arXiv/PubMed papers), truncated to 2000 tokens per document, 500 tokens per section, max 4 sections.
**Output**: Abstractive summary (abstract), generated via beam search with beam size 4, max length 210 tokens.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_rouge_f1(generated, reference):
# 1. Lowercase both strings
gen = generated.lower()
ref = reference.lower()
# 2. Tokenize using spaCy (sentence and word level)
gen_tokens = [token.text for token in nlp(gen)]
ref_tokens = [token.text for token in nlp(ref)]
# 3. Compute full-length F-1 score for specified ROUGE variant
score = rouge_score(ref, gen, use_stemmer=False)
return score['rouge1'].fmeasure * 100 # Return as percent
```
## Common pitfalls
- ROUGE tokenization differs across implementations; this paper explicitly uses spaCy for both sentence and word tokenization, unlike the standard NLTK-based ROUGE.
- The paper lowercases all tokens before evaluation, which can inflate scores compared to case-sensitive ROUGE variants.
- ROUGE scores are inherently biased towards extractive methods that copy salient sentences, making direct comparison with abstractive models challenging.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> evaluation was done using the ROUGE automatic summarization evaluation metric (Lin, 2004) with full-length F-1 ROUGE scores. We lowercase all tokens and perform sentence and word tokenization using spaCy (Honnibal and Johnson, 2015).
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{cohan2018discourse,
title={A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documents},
author={Cohan et al. (2018)},
year={2018},
note={arXiv:1804.05685}
}
```
- arXiv: 1804.05685