Closed EngSalem closed 1 year ago
Hey @EngSalem ,
Good question. The expected behavior is indeed that the model will return a high value, close to 1.0. However, as the sentences are being fed into a model, the behavior is likely to vary by input.
I tried the following code, which tested both SummaC-ZS and SummaC-Conv:
from summac.model_summac import SummaCZS, SummaCConv
model_zs = SummaCZS(granularity="sentence", model_name="vitc", device="cuda") # If you have a GPU: switch to: device="cuda"
model_conv = SummaCConv(models=["vitc"], bins='percentile', granularity="sentence", nli_labels="e", device="cpu", start_file="default", agg="mean")
document = "EngSalem states that the model should give a score of close to 1.0 for a pair of identical sentences."
summary1 = "EngSalem states that the model should give a score of close to 1.0 for a pair of identical sentences."
score_zs1 = model_zs.score([document], [summary1])
print("SummacZS Score: %.2f" % score_zs1["scores"][0])
score_conv1 = model_conv.score([document], [summary1])
print("SummacConv Score: %.2f" % score_conv1["scores"][0])
And got the following:
SummacZS Score: 0.99
SummacConv Score: 0.87
Both models gave very high scores, but for this example, it seems like SummaCZS gave the strongest positive score.
I hope this helps! Philippe
Hi, would two exact sentences have a summac_conv score near 1.? I am having trouble interpreting the output results