Recent advances in summarization research focus on improving summary quality across multiple criteria, such as completeness, conciseness, and faithfulness, by jointly optimizing these dimensions. However, these efforts largely overlook the challenge of controlling summary generation with respect to individual criteria, especially in the presence of their inherent trade-offs. For example, enhancing conciseness can compromise completeness, and vice versa. In this work, we address this gap by proposing a loss function that aligns model outputs with fine-grained, model-based evaluation scores (e.g., from FineSurE), enabling both improvement in summary quality and dimension-specific control. Our approach improves the overall quality of summaries while maintaining the ability to selectively prioritize one criterion over others. Experiments on three pretrained models (LLaMA, Qwen, and Mistral) demonstrate that our method achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art summarizers, while uniquely offering strong controllability over individual quality dimensions.
Recent advances in summary evaluation are based on model-based metrics to assess quality dimensions, such as completeness, conciseness, and faithfulness. However, these methods often require large language models, and predicted scores are frequently miscalibrated, limiting their reliability. Moreover, evaluating the average quality across different summaries for a single document typically requires access to multiple reference summaries. Here, we propose a general framework that generates individual and average proxy scores without relying on reference summaries, human annotations, or expensive model-based metrics. We also propose group isotonic regression binning (GIRB), a calibration method that adjusts the raw predictions to better align with ground-truth evaluation metrics. While we focus on continuous-value scenarios, such as summarization, the method is applicable to discrete-value tasks, such as question answering. Experiments on seven datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms existing baselines.
Small language models (SLMs), such as BART, can achieve summarization performance comparable to large language models (LLMs) via distillation. However, existing LLM-based ranking strategies for summary candidates suffer from instability, while classical metrics (e.g., ROUGE) are insufficient to rank high-quality summaries. To address these issues, we introduce \textbf{SCURank}, a framework that enhances summarization by leveraging \textbf{Summary Content Units (SCUs)}. Instead of relying on unstable comparisons or surface-level overlap, SCURank evaluates summaries based on the richness and semantic importance of information content. We investigate the effectiveness of SCURank in distilling summaries from multiple diverse LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate that SCURank outperforms traditional metrics and LLM-based ranking methods across evaluation measures and datasets. Furthermore, our findings show that incorporating diverse LLM summaries enhances model abstractiveness and overall distilled model performance, validating the benefits of information-centric ranking in multi-LLM distillation. The code for SCURank is available at https://github.com/IKMLab/SCURank.
Evaluating long document summaries remains the primary bottleneck in summarization research. Existing metrics correlate weakly with human judgments and produce aggregate scores without explaining deficiencies or guiding improvement, preventing effective refinement in applications requiring verifiable accuracy. We introduce LongSumEval, a unified framework bridging evaluation and generation through structured question-answering feedback. The framework operationalizes summary quality as answerability and factual alignment of question-answer pairs, generating interpretable scores and actionable feedback that identifies coverage gaps and factual inconsistencies. This resolves the misalignment where evaluation operates independently of generation objectives. Meta-evaluation of our QA-based evaluation module across seven benchmarks demonstrates substantially stronger agreement with human judgments compared to established metrics. Structured feedback enables significant quality improvements through self-refinement without retraining. By demonstrating that evaluation feedback can serve as executable instructions for generation, this work establishes a generalizable paradigm for aligning assessment with improvement, with direct implications for controllable text generation requiring verifiable accuracy and transparent quality control. All code and datasets will be released in GitHub for reproducibility.