The Plot Thins: Uniformity and Linearity in Literary Summaries

Although LLM context lengths have grown, there is evidence that their ability to integrate information across long-form texts has not kept pace. We evaluate one such understanding task: generating summaries of novels. When human authors of summaries compress a story, they reveal what they consider narratively important. Therefore, by comparing human and LLM-authored summaries, we can assess whether models mirror human patterns of conceptual engagement with texts. To measure conceptual engagement, we align sentences from 150 human-written novel summaries with the specific chapters they reference. We demonstrate the difficulty of this alignment task, which indicates the complexity of summarization as a task. We then generate and align additional summaries by nine state-of-the-art LLMs for each of the 150 reference texts. Comparing the human and model-authored summaries, we find both stylistic differences between the texts and differences in how humans and LLMs distribute their focus throughout a narrative, with models emphasizing the ends of texts. Comparing human narrative engagement with model attention mechanisms suggests explanations for degraded narrative comprehension and targets for future development. We release our dataset to support future research.

Movie scripts pose a fundamental challenge for automatic summarization due to their non-linear, cross-cut narrative structure, which makes surface-level saliency methods ineffective at preserving core story progression. To address this, we introduce S^2tory (Story Spine Distillation), a narratology-grounded framework that leverages character development trajectories to identify plot nuclei, the essential events that drive the narrative forward, while filtering out peripheral satellite events that merely enrich atmosphere or emotion. Our Narrative Expert Agent (NEAgent) performs theory-constrained reasoning, whose distilled knowledge conditions a small model to identify plot nuclei. Another model then uses these plot nuclei to generate the summary. Experiments on the MovieSum dataset demonstrate state-of-the-art semantic fidelity at approximately 3.5x compression, and zero-shot evaluation on BookSum confirms strong out-of-domain generalization. Human evaluation further validates that narratological theory provides an indispensable foundation for modeling complex, non-linear narratives.

The majority of work on summarization evaluation focuses on general summary quality (e.g., ROUGE, BERTScore) or specific desired properties (e.g., readability, factuality). However, these metrics fail to measure the utility of a summary to an individual user. For example, a biomedical researcher learning about the latest vaccine research will have different informational needs from a family doctor. Query-focused summarization captures part of this need, but in practice, users rarely state everything relevant in a query: a single short query is likely inadequate to distinguish the needs of a researcher from those of a physician. By contrast, a reader's background or persona (their role and expertise) is comparatively stable across queries and recovers much of this missing context, which makes it a practical signal for assessing whether a summary satisfies that reader's needs. In this work, we assess how sensitive popular summarization metrics are to both informational and persona differences, and find that many popular metrics, including strong LLM-as-judge metrics, fail basic perturbation tests of informational content. We additionally conduct an expert human evaluation, measuring summary preferences based on information satisfaction given a specific person's background and use case. We find that both traditional and LLM-based metrics are insufficient measures of information satisfaction and agree poorly with human judgment.