Multi-role dialogue summarization requires modeling complex interactions among multiple speakers while preserving role-specific information and factual consistency. However, most existing methods optimize for automatic metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore, which favor surface-level imitation of references rather than genuine gains in faithfulness or alignment with human preferences. We propose a novel framework that couples explicit cognitive-style reasoning with reward-based optimization for multi-role dialogue summarization. Our method first distills structured reasoning traces (e.g., step-by-step inferences and intermediate reflections) from a large teacher model and uses them as auxiliary supervision to initialize a reasoning-aware summarizer via staged supervised fine-tuning. It then applies GRPO with a dual-principle reward that blends metric-based signals with human-aligned criteria targeting key information coverage, implicit inference, factual faithfulness, and conciseness. Experiments on multilingual multi-role dialogue benchmarks show that our method matches strong baselines on ROUGE and BERTScore. Specifically, results on CSDS confirm the framework's stability in semantic consistency, while in-depth analysis on SAMSum demonstrates clear gains in factual faithfulness and model-based preference alignment. These findings underscore the value of reasoning-aware and preference-aware training for reliable dialogue summarization. Checkpoints and datasets are available at https://huggingface.co/collections/NebulaPixel/summorchestra-multirole-summary.
Existing text summarization research has focused much on monologic information (e.g., newspaper articles, reports) without accounting for the interaction between speakers or authors. In contrast, dialogues are a rich communication channel where multiple participants conduct back and forth exchanges to construct meaning. We propose a dialogue summarization framework that explicitly models both semantic and emotion dynamics using multimodal dialogue inputs, built on an adapted hierarchical Chain-of-Agents approach. We decompose dialogues from two perspectives: (1) topic segments based on the utterances of all participants, and (2) participant-specific utterance segments. These are used to generate corresponding summaries while incorporating automatically inferred emotions. Topic- and participant-level summaries are aggregated into a dialogue summary capturing semantic content and emotion trajectories. To evaluate beyond content accuracy, we introduce emotion trajectory metrics measuring how well summaries preserve emotional flow. Experiments with small language models on multimodal dialogue datasets show that our framework produces summaries with both semantic and emotion content. Further experiments on explicit emotion label availability highlight the efficacy of our proposed methodology and the opportunities in dialogue analysis using language models.
Large language model (LLM) based multi-turn dialogue systems often struggle to track dependencies across non-adjacent turns, undermining both consistency and scalability. As conversations lengthen, essential information becomes sparse and is buried in irrelevant context, while processing the entire dialogue history incurs severe efficiency bottlenecks. Existing solutions either rely on high latency external memory or lose fine-grained details through iterative summarization. In this paper, we propose Self-Recall Thinking (SRT), a framework designed to address long-range contextual dependency and sparse informative signals in multi-turn dialogue. SRT identifies helpful historical turns and uses them to generate contextually appropriate responses, enabling the model to selectively recall and reason over context during inference. This process yields an endogenous reasoning process that integrates interpretable recall steps without external modules. SRT incorporates: (1) Dependency Construction: Generating and converting it into self-recall chains; (2)Capability Initialization: Training to enable reasoning chains with recall tokens capability; (3)Reasoning Improvement: Refining accuracy via verifiable rewards to optimize recall and reasoning for correct answers. Experiments on multiple datasets demonstrate that SRT improves F1 score by 4.7% and reduces end-to-end latency by 14.7% over prior methods, achieving a balance between reasoning latency and accuracy, and outperforming state-of-the-art baselines.
Despite the significant advancement of LLMs in conversation summarization, their evaluation remains limited by insufficient scenarios, input lengths, and sample sizes. Furthermore, existing benchmarks often omit frontier reasoning systems and efficient small models, or lack fine-grained, multi-dimensional assessments. To bridge these gaps, we propose OmniCSEval, a unified benchmark comprising 1,800 diverse conversations across six real-world scenarios, featuring context lengths ranging from 128 to 32k tokens. For fine-grained evaluation, we employ a bidirectional fact-checking framework that integrates key fact matching to assess completeness and conciseness, alongside summary fact verification to evaluate faithfulness. To ensure reliable assessment, we establish a human-LLM collaborative pipeline for key fact extraction and a multi-LLM consensus verifier for summary fact decomposition. Leveraging this framework, we evaluate 28 LLMs across four distinct categories grouped by reasoning capability and model scale. Our extensive empirical study reveals critical insights regarding the cross-scenario challenges current LLMs continue to face, the impacts of reasoning and scale, and the efficiency and adaptability of reasoning models. We also provide guidance for system selection in real-world deployments.