Long documents often distribute important information across extensive narrative passages and multiple tables, making faithful summarization particularly challenging. Existing methods may generate individually supported quantitative facts and analytical statements yet associate them incorrectly, producing quantitatively plausible yet analytically unfaithful summaries. In this work, we propose LOOMSUM, a training-free framework that extracts source-grounded atomic evidence, explicitly links table-derived facts with supporting narrative analyses, and plans the discourse structure before generation. We also introduce Table-Grounded Faithfulness (TGF), a claim-level metric that separately evaluates Numeric Grounding, Analysis Support, and Relation Consistency. Experiments on the text--table summarization benchmarks FINDSum and USTT show that LOOMSUM improves analytical faithfulness while maintaining strong summarization quality. Human evaluation finds positive component-level associations with the corresponding human judgments. Our Relation Consistency metric further shows stronger agreement with human relation judgments than generic factuality metrics, indicating that explicit cross-modal linking helps reduce errors in which supported quantities are paired with incorrect narrative interpretations. Together, these findings show that faithful long text--table summarization requires not only grounding individual facts, but also preserving the relations between them.
Evaluation of faithfulness of text summarization treats a model generated summary as faithful only if every of its sentences is supported by the source document: a strict conjunctive rule under which a single unsupported sentence makes the whole summary unfaithful. Yet most faithfulness benchmarks collect only one global human annotation label per summary. We ask whether such global human labels actually implement the conjunctive rule. We hypothesize that annotators may accept a summary as faithful when most sentences are faithful, not only when all are faithful. To test our hypothesis, we use five large language model (LLM) judges as per-sentence raters across four widely used faithfulness benchmarks. We find that global human labels correlate better with the average of per-sentence LLM judgments than with the implementation of the strict conjunctive rule. A manual review confirms that a substantial fraction of summaries labeled faithful by humans contain genuine local factual errors. We call this tendency Averaging Bias. Our results reveal that human labels on widely used faithfulness benchmarks contain measurable Averaging Bias, calling for carefully structured designs for trustworthy human annotations
Large language models produce fluent multi-document summaries, but their attributions are typically coarse---whole documents or passages---and generated post hoc, leaving each statement hard to verify. We argue that attribution should be a structural property of generation rather than a downstream prediction. We present CAMS, a Claim-Anchored Multi-document Summarization framework that decomposes every source document into atomic claims whose provenance is resolved deterministically from verbatim quotes to token spans, clusters equivalent claims across documents while flagging inter-source conflicts, selects a support-aware and salient subset, and rewrites it so that every summary sentence terminates in claim identifiers resolving back to source spans. This yields a separation we make explicit: provenance is an invariant holding for every emitted sentence independently of model accuracy, whereas faithfulness is an objective that selection, constrained rewriting, and verification only encourage---a distinction end-to-end and post-hoc systems conflate. We evaluate on MultiNews, DiverseSumm, and zero-shot on WCEP under a two-regime protocol separating reference-free citation quality from gold-aligned localization, audited by a support model never used for selection or verification. CAMSmatches strong end-to-end and span-attribution baselines on summary quality while improving faithfulness and citation precision, raising multi-source attribution accuracy from 38% to 64% without inflating the number of cited sources, and cutting human verification time per claim by 3.4×. We release code and ∼320K claim--quote--span annotations over MultiNews as a reusable fine-grained attribution resource.
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.