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.
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.
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.
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×.
arXiv:2606. 26437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist.
The paper presents a detailed examination of narrative elements—agency, setting, and events—within the Dolma web-scale pretraining corpus. Using a framework of 11 interpretable dimensions, the authors hand‑annotated 400 passages, expanded this to a 25,000‑passage LLM‑labeled dataset, and trained NarraBERT models to predict narrative features across 13 million passages, producing the NarraDolma dataset. The study reveals that narrative structure is measurable at scale and that narrative qualities vary unevenly across different data sources, topics, and formats, highlighting gaps in current data curation practices.
The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.