Abstractiveness Metrics for Evaluating Text Summarization: A Refined Formulation with Empirical Validation

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.

Abstractive text summarization is the technique of generating a short and concise summary comprising the salient ideas of a source text without making a subset of the salient sentences from the source text. The introduction of transformer models such as BART, T5, and PEGASUS has made this sort of summarization process more efficient and accurate. The objective of this paper is to fine-tune PEGASUS on the XL-Sum English corpus to achieve a better performance compared to the baseline mT5 model. The performance of the generated summaries from the fine-tuned model is evaluated using the ROUGE metric, which basically compares the auto-generated summaries with human-created summaries. To the best of our knowledge, the results from our fine-tuned PEGASUS model give a state-of-the-art performance on the XL-Sum English Corpus. To quantify the improvement, there is a 4.04% improvement in the ROUGE-1 score, a 15.25% increase in the ROUGE-2 score, and a 3.39% improvement in the ROUGE-L score from the baseline model.

Abstractive text summarization systems frequently generate fluent yet unfaithful summaries by fabricating or distorting relationships between entities and events. Such relation-level hallucinations undermine the reliability of generated summaries, particularly in high-stakes domains. In this work, we present a refined and grounded framework for evaluating relation hallucination in abstractive summarization. We present the empirical Relation Hallucination Index (RHI) by introducing a dependency-aware relation extraction algorithm that incorporates lemmatization-based normalization, named entity grounded subject resolution, passive agent recovery, negation-aware verb modeling, reporting verb filtering, nominal relation fallback, clausal propagation, and systematic deduplication. These enhancements improve the structural fidelity of extracted relation triples and reduce spurious matches during evaluation. In addition, we introduce a normalized formulation of RHI to ensure scale-invariant comparison between datasets and models. The revised metric decomposes hallucination into interpretable components, aggregates relation hallucination metric into a normalized relation faithfulness score. Extensive evaluation across multiple state-of-the-art summarization models demonstrates that the grounded extraction process yields more stable and discriminative hallucination measurements. The proposed framework advances automated relation-level faithfulness evaluation and supports coherence-aware, hallucination-sensitive model analysis.