LIDS: LLM Summary Inference Under the Layered Lens

Reliable evaluation of large language model (LLM)-generated summaries remains an open challenge, particularly across heterogeneous domains and document lengths. We conduct a comprehensive meta-evaluation of 14 automatic summarization metrics and LLM-based evaluators across seven datasets spanning five domains, covering documents from short news articles to long scientific, governmental, and legal texts (2K-27K words) with over 1,500 human-annotated summaries. Our results show that traditional lexical overlap metrics (e.g., ROUGE, BLEU) exhibit weak or negative correlation with human judgments, while task-specific neural metrics and LLM-based evaluators achieve substantially higher alignment, especially for linguistic quality assessment. Leveraging these findings, we propose LLM-ReSum, a self-reflective summarization framework that integrates LLM-based evaluation and generation in a closed feedback loop without model finetuning. Across three domains, LLM-ReSum improves low-quality summaries by up to 33% in factual accuracy and 39% in coverage, with human evaluators preferring refined summaries in 89% of cases. We additionally introduce PatentSumEval, a new human-annotated benchmark for legal document summarization comprising 180 expert-evaluated summaries. All code and datasets will be released in GitHub.

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. We re-examine this narrative through a multi-track evaluation covering diverse datasets and state-of-the-art LLMs, combining controlled human assessment, bias-mitigated LLM-as-Judge protocols, factuality verification against external knowledge, and corpus-level linguistic analysis. Our findings reveal a more nuanced landscape in which human references continue to demonstrate advantages in informativeness and faithfulness, whereas LLM outputs are preferred mainly for surface-level coherence and fluency. Factuality verification indicates that human references remain more reliable, particularly for claims involving reasoning or synthesis, and linguistic analysis uncovers a pattern of stylistic homogeneity across different models. These observations suggest that current LLMs have raised the floor of summarization quality, but the ceiling of their performance remains below human capabilities.

Summarization ships in countless production systems, making model selection a routine decision that depends on measuring summary quality. Existing metrics struggle to support this: ROUGE captures only surface overlap, while LLM-as-judge scores saturate to near-identical values that fail to rank models effectively. We observe this saturation across three public datasets, two proprietary datasets, and multilingual settings. Motivated by this, we introduce Semantic Scaffold, an evaluation framework that extracts a hierarchical representation of facts, questions, and entity attributes from a source text, labeling each as a main point or supporting detail, and reusing this structure as a fixed reference for scoring summaries. From this representation, we derive three diagnostic metrics: Fact Preservation Score (FPS), Question Preservation Score (QPS), and Entity Preservation Score (EPS), designed to reward the preservation of essential information while penalizing detail overload, and position them as interpretable diagnostics that remain informative where holistic axes collapse. Finally, we analyze four recurring failure modes of ROUGE and LLM-as-judge scores, demonstrating that scaffold-based evaluation remains informative where conventional metrics collapse.