arXiv Computation and Language

Preserving What Matters: Semantic Scaffolds Beyond Saturation in Summarization Evaluation

arXiv AI
Sep 3

Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English

The paper introduces BASSE, a multilingual meta‑evaluation dataset containing 2,040 human‑rated abstractive summaries produced manually or by five LLMs with four prompts. Annotators scored each summary on coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H using a 5‑point Likert scale. Benchmarking shows proprietary LLM‑judge models best align with human judgments, followed by criteria‑specific automatic metrics, while open‑source judge LLMs perform poorly.

By Jeremy Barnes, Naiara Perez, Alba Bonet-Jover, Bego\~na Altuna
arXiv AI
Jun 9

Summarization is Not Dead Yet

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.

By Dongqi Liu, Chenxi Whitehouse, Zheng Zhao, Zhuchen Cao, Jian Li, Yabiao Wang
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 3

CARPAS: Towards Content-Aware Refinement of Provided Aspects for Summarization in Large Language Models

The paper introduces CARPAS, a new task that dynamically refines user-provided aspects for aspect-based summarization in large language models (LLMs). It presents three new datasets and evaluates four prompting strategies, finding that LLMs tend to over-generate aspects, leading to overly long and misaligned summaries. To address this, the authors propose a two-stage framework that first generates lightweight scope guidance before aspect refinement and summarization, which improves focus, reduces over-generation, and enhances performance across all datasets.

By Yong-En Tian, Yu-Chien Tang, An-Zi Yen, Wen-Chih Peng
arXiv AI
Jun 26

Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug.

By Sangwoo Cho, Kushal Chawla, Pengshan Cai, Zefang Liu, Chenyang Zhu, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Sambit Sahu