  Opinion summarization sets itself apart from other types of summarization
tasks due to its distinctive focus on aspects and sentiments. Although certain
automated evaluation methods like ROUGE have gained popularity, we have found
them to be unreliable measures for assessing the quality of opinion summaries.
In this paper, we present OpinSummEval, a dataset comprising human judgments
and outputs from 14 opinion summarization models. We further explore the
correlation between 24 automatic metrics and human ratings across four
dimensions. Our findings indicate that metrics based on neural networks
generally outperform non-neural ones. However, even metrics built on powerful
backbones, such as BART and GPT-3/3.5, do not consistently correlate well
across all dimensions, highlighting the need for advancements in automated
evaluation methods for opinion summarization. The code and data are publicly
available at https://github.com/A-Chicharito-S/OpinSummEval/tree/main.
