Improving the quality of model-generated summaries, especially factuality, the accuracy of a summary with respect to its source content, remains a challenge. While reranking could select the optimal output from multiple generated candidates, it is limited to only using the source as guidance, resulting in unreliable summaries. To address this limitation, we propose ConSUM that reranks candidate summaries by considering two factors: consistency to the source document and consensus among the other candidates. Consensus is established using Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding over the set of generated summaries, while ensuring consistency by employing factuality-aware metrics that compare the summary against the source. Rigorous testing demonstrates that our system is competitive with existing methods, with human evaluations further confirming that its generated summaries are preferred over those from other systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/naist-nlp/ConSUM .
Reinforcement learning with evaluation metrics as rewards is widely used to enhance specific capabilities of language models. However, for tasks such as factually consistent summarisation, existing metrics remain underdeveloped, limiting their effectiveness as signals for shaping model behaviour.While individual factuality metrics are unreliable, their combination can more effectively capture diverse factual errors. We leverage this insight to introduce an automated training pipeline that improves factual consistency in summaries by aggregating scores from different weak metrics. Our approach avoids the need for complex reward shaping by mapping scores to preferences and filtering out cases with high disagreement between metrics. For each source document, we generate lexically similar summary pairs by varying decoding strategies, enabling the model to learn from factual differences caused by subtle lexical differences. This approach constructs a high-quality preference dataset using only source documents.Experiments demonstrate consistent factuality gains across models, ranging from early encoder-decoder architectures to modern large language models, with smaller models reaching comparable factuality to larger ones.
Abstractive summarization models remain vulnerable to factual inconsistency, redundancy, and weak length control. We propose a modular generation-and-selection framework for sentence-budget-constrained summarization. A pretrained generator produces multiple candidate summaries, which are decomposed into sentence-level candidates. A combinatorial selector then constructs the final summary by balancing relevance, factuality, and redundancy under an explicit budget. The framework supports MMR, ILP, and a DPP-inspired log-determinant objective without retraining the generator. Experiments on CNN/DailyMail, Multi-News, FaithBench, and TofuEval show consistent improvements in factuality and source-grounding metrics, especially for multi-document summarization, at the cost of lower reference-overlap scores. Human evaluation further indicates higher perceived consistency, relevance, clarity, and conciseness, with a small reduction in coherence. These results show that decoupling generation from selection provides a model-agnostic mechanism for improving factual grounding. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/bcfs-D05E/.
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.