arXiv:2606. 08000v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references, raising questions about whether summarization remains an open research problem.
arXiv:2606. 05724v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-form narrative QA requires reasoning over evolving story worlds rather than isolated passages: answers may depend on earlier goals, changing character states, social relations, causal triggers, temporal position, and later consequences.
The paper introduces ComInsight, a method for generating analytical reports from relational tables by composing verifiable atomic insights. It defines atomic insights as minimal executable analytical units, enumerates them from the database schema, and organizes them into a multi-relational insight graph. Composition operators then fuse these atomic nodes into higher-order conclusions, each accompanied by executable SQL and fine-grained provenance, achieving superior factual correctness, novelty, and structural completeness on three benchmarks.
arXiv:2607. 09328v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Answering complex questions over long documents frequently requires integrating evidence that the source itself disperses naturally across distant passages.
OARelatedWork is a large‑scale dataset for generating entire related‑work sections from open‑access papers, comprising 94,450 papers across multiple domains. It includes full texts of cited works and is designed so every source paper is available in full, enabling controlled evaluation of full‑text related‑work generation. The paper benchmarks various models, shows that large language models struggle with massive full‑text contexts, and introduces a statement‑level evaluation framework to better assess long‑form structured outputs.
arXiv:2606. 23989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: End-to-end large language models (LLMs) produce fluent multi-document summaries but remain prone to hallucination, and the attributions they offer are typically coarse (whole documents or passages) and generated post hoc, leaving each summary statement hard to verify.
arXiv:2607. 09328v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Answering complex questions over long documents frequently requires integrating evidence that the source itself disperses naturally across distant passages.
arXiv:2601.03418v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Trustworthy clinical summarization requires every claim to be traceable to its evidence, yet existing attribution often resolves only to the senten...
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) engage with long-form narratives by comparing their generated novel summaries to human-authored ones. Researchers align sentences from 150 human-written summaries to specific chapters, highlighting the challenge of this alignment task and the complexity of summarization. They find stylistic differences and that LLMs tend to focus more on the ends of texts, suggesting insights into why models may struggle with narrative comprehension.
arXiv:2608. 08180v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Abstractive text summarization systems frequently generate fluent yet unfaithful summaries by fabricating or distorting relationships between entities and events.
arXiv:2608. 05228v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The "decompose-then-verify" paradigm for LLM factuality evaluation faces a fundamental trade-off: atomic facts, i.
The paper introduces CAMS, a Claim‑Anchored Multi‑Document Summarization framework that decomposes source documents into atomic claims, resolves provenance deterministically from verbatim quotes to token spans, clusters equivalent claims across documents, and rewrites summaries so each sentence ends with claim identifiers linking back to source spans. CAMS separates provenance (an invariant for each emitted sentence) from faithfulness (an objective encouraged by selection, rewriting, and verification). Evaluations on MultiNews, DiverseSumm, and zero‑shot WCEP show that CAMS matches strong baselines in summary quality while improving faithfulness and citation precision, raising attribution accuracy from 38% to 64% and reducing human verification time per claim by 3.4×.