QMSum provides no scorer, making query-focused meeting summarization results difficult to compare. We rescore or generate 15 systems under one implementation. Through a common inference port, a released 406M Fusion-in-Decoder specialist loses 6.30 ROUGE-1 when moved from capped long input to 2,000-word retrieved spans. Fine-tuning it on this span regime recovers the loss. On test it scores 36.33 ROUGE-1 versus 35.41 for our 1.2B system; the meeting-cluster 95% interval for the difference is [-0.27, +2.22], so QMSum does not statistically separate them. The smaller system uses about one-third as many total parameters and less than half the peak inference memory. Within the fixed 1.2B base, span-regime fine-tuning adds 5.29 [+4.02, +6.56], while replacing the first 4,500 transcript words with 2,000 retrieved words adds 1.55 on test and 0.29 on validation. Separately, under one concise prompt and reference-overlap scorer, a released 406M specialist exceeds five proprietary hosted models by at least 6.2 ROUGE-1, but output length and absent human or factuality evaluation limit this ordering. Conclusions are limited to QMSum and automatic metrics.
Figures & tables
protocol-exact
promoted
window width
900 words
375 words
span budget
3,000 words
2,000 words
ranking cross-encoder
ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2 , 6 layers, 22.7M
ms-marco-MiniLM-L-12-v2 , 12 layers, 33M
training pairs
13,738 (16.6% positive)
33,655 (11.9% positive)
utterance recall at its own budget (validation)
0.627
0.670
test ROUGE-1 of the full system
33.39
35.41
Table 1
System
Params
R1
R2
R-L
R-Lsum
BERTScore
Socratic-SegEnc (released outputs)
406M
38.60
13.91
24.98
33.71
0.8737
Span-trained SegEnc
406M
36.33
12.72
23.69
32.17
0.8710
Ours (promoted)
1.2B + 33M
35.41
12.28
24.63
31.36
0.8733
Socratic-SegEnc (our port)
406M
35.30
11.87
23.00
30.56
0.8695
Ours (protocol-exact)
1.2B + 22.7M
33.39
10.65
22.83
29.30
0.8680
GPT-5.6 Luna (zero-shot)
undisclosed
32.43
7.89
19.05
27.49
0.8608
Table 1: The single-protocol scale. Full official test split (n=281), one frozen scorer, at most one test touch per system. Every row generated and scored by us, except Socratic-SegEnc (released outputs), scored from the authors’ predictions (Section 5.4).
Figure 1: The runnable-protocol scale. Every bar uses predictions generated through our evaluation path on the official test split (n=281) and one frozen scorer. The Socratic-SegEnc bar is our 35.30 port result, matching the separately labelled port row in Table 1 . Systems are sorted by ROUGE-1, with parameter counts written on the bars.
system, test split
R1 precision
R1 recall
R1 F
median words
x reference
ours, protocol-exact
0.359
0.348
0.334
56
0.95
gpt-5.6-luna
0.288
0.444
0.324
86
1.46
gpt-5.6-sol
0.279
0.417
0.309
81
1.37
claude-opus-5
0.195
0.629
0.289
223
3.78
claude-haiku-4-5
0.200
0.574
0.287
190
3.22
claude-sonnet-5
0.192
0.592
0.279
214
3.63
Table 4
comparison
delta ROUGE-1
95% interval
vs claude-sonnet-5
+7.52
[+6.24, +8.79]
vs distilbart (best community checkpoint)
+6.76
[+5.24, +8.30]
vs claude-haiku-4-5
+6.74
[+5.49, +7.97]
vs claude-opus-5
+6.54
[+5.23, +7.80]
vs gpt-5.6-sol
+4.49
[+3.24, +5.77]
vs gpt-5.6-luna
+2.98
[+1.75, +4.24]
Table 5
Figure 2: Every margin against our promoted system, with both sources of uncertainty. Bars are 95% paired bootstrap intervals over the 281 test queries. The shaded band is the 1.59-point reseeding range of Section 8.4 , which the paired bootstrap does not capture.
configuration (test split)
R1
R2
R-L
R-Lsum
BERTScore
protocol-exact
33.39
10.65
22.83
29.30
0.868
promoted (the deviating configuration)
35.41
12.28
24.63
31.36
0.873
Table 7
comparison (ours minus theirs)
delta BERTScore
95% interval
vs led-base
+0.0915
[+0.0866, +0.0964]
vs pegasus
+0.0389
[+0.0352, +0.0424]
vs claude-haiku-4-5
+0.0302
[+0.0280, +0.0323]
vs claude-sonnet-5
+0.0255
[+0.0232, +0.0277]
vs bart-large-cnn
+0.0220
[+0.0190, +0.0249]
vs claude-opus-5
+0.0211
[+0.0189, +0.0233]
Table 8
locator
window
utterance recall @2000w
@3000w
MiniLM-L6 (original)
900
0.5035
0.6268
MiniLM-L12
900
0.5108
0.6319
MiniLM-L6
375
0.6420
0.7468
MiniLM-L12
375
0.6704
0.7650
Table 9
span budget
utterance recall
val ROUGE-1
1,500
0.610
34.70
2,000
0.670
35.39
3,000
0.765
34.50
Table 10
configuration
R1
our pipeline
35.61
our gold-span oracle
36.71
stock Socratic SegEnc (authors’ predictions)
38.10
Table 11
cell, official test split
R1
R2
R-L
R-Lsum
BERTScore
base, truncated transcript
28.57
5.55
17.79
24.55
0.8607
base, our located spans
30.12
6.70
19.29
25.04
0.8687
fine-tuned, our located spans (promoted)
35.41
12.28
24.63
31.36
0.8733
Table 12
Figure 3: The two levers, de-confounded. One base model, one adapter, three conditions: only the input regime changes between the first two bars, and only the fine-tune between the second and third.
checkpoint
source regime
val R1
change
stock Socratic SegEnc
capped long input, about 11,800 words
35.30
baseline
stock Socratic SegEnc
our located spans, 2,000 words
29.00
-6.30 vs stock long-input
span-trained SegEnc, reported checkpoint
the same located spans
37.05
+8.05 vs stock-on-spans; +1.75 net
Table 14
effective epoch, matched-chunk lineage
val R1
4
37.13
end of the initial fine-tune, 22 minutes
5
38.31
peak
6
36.59
7
36.97
8
37.05
last checkpoint, the figure we report
Table 15
Figure 4: What one model’s training epochs are worth on this benchmark. Five checkpoints of the span-trained specialist differing only in training epoch, on validation. Quoting the peak rather than the plateau would overstate the model by 1.1 ROUGE-1.
basis
R1
margin over our system
last checkpoint, without checkpoint selection
37.05
+1.67, [+0.58, +2.76]
plateau mean, epochs 5 to 8
37.23
about +1.8
worst checkpoint after the peak
36.59
+1.20
peak, reported for completeness only
38.31
+2.93, [+1.88, +3.99]
Table 17
metric
ours
span-trained SegEnc
diff
95% interval
ROUGE-1
35.41
36.33
+0.93
[-0.42, +2.24]
ROUGE-2
12.28
12.72
+0.43
[-0.77, +1.64]
ROUGE-L
24.63
23.69
-0.94
[-2.06, +0.18]
ROUGE-Lsum
31.36
32.17
+0.81
[-0.47, +2.05]
BERTScore
0.8733
0.8710
-0.0022
[-0.0046, +0.0001]
Table 18
span-trained SegEnc
ours
ratio
parameters, incl. the shared 33M locator
439M
1.2B + 33M
2.8x
peak inference VRAM, max over the validation split
2.66 GB
5.73 GB
2.16x
peak inference VRAM, median
2.66 GB
4.71 GB
1.77x
mean latency per query, two validation runs each, locate step included
1.85s and 2.00s
2.35s and 2.76s
1.3x to 1.4x
training to this checkpoint
about 45 minutes (eight matched-chunk epochs; the first four measured at 22 minutes)
4.7 to 5.6 hours
large
test ROUGE-1
36.33
35.41
difference unresolved
Table 2: Resource comparison at an unresolved test difference. Both systems include the shared locator; ratios divide our measured value by the span-trained SegEnc value. Crossing intervals do not establish formal equivalence.
seed
ROUGE-1
ROUGE-2
ROUGE-Lsum
BERTScore
20260723 (promoted)
35.39
11.39
31.09
0.8724
101
33.80
10.37
29.86
0.8701
range
1.59
1.02
1.23
0.002
Table 20
Artifact
Repository
Revision
Summarizer adapter, promoted configuration
ErtasAI/qmsum-summarizer-lfm2.5-1.2b-lora
7d73ab6535ea
Locator, promoted, 12 layers at a 375-word window
ErtasAI/qmsum-locator-minilm-l12-w375
f54ed53f816b
Locator, protocol-exact, 6 layers at a 900-word window
Meeting documents are challenging to summarize due to their length and complex conversational structure. Existing approaches typically adopt multi-stage pipelines that extract information prior to summarization; however, these approaches often suffer from cumulative error propagation without intermediate validation, a limitation further amplified by short and low-quality reference summaries. We propose segment-level summarization via Monte Carlo Tree Search (S3), a training-free framework that constructs a final summary by composing segment-level summary candidates. S3 partitions a long document into segments and generates multiple summary candidates per segment, forming nodes of a search tree. The best-scoring combination is selected via self-reward-guided tree search and refined into the final output. Despite using a 7B model, S3 achieves performance comparable to larger 72B models while producing length-appropriate summaries.
Sangwon Ryu, Heejin Do, Jun Seo +4
GSAI, POSTECH · ETH Zurich, ETH AI Center · Agentic AI Lab, KT +2
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.
Large-scale datasets are widely used to perform summarization tasks, but they may not include queries alongside documents and summaries. In the search for suitable datasets for Query-Focused Summarization (QFS), we identify two research questions: Is it possible to automatically generate evidence-based query keywords from query-free datasets? Does evidence-based query generation support the QFS task? This paper proposes an evidence-based model to generate queries from query-free datasets. To evaluate our model intrinsically, we compare the similarity between the original queries and the system-generated queries of two QFS datasets. We also perform summarization tasks using different pre-trained models, as well as a state-of-the-art (SOTA) QFS model, to measure the extrinsic performance of our query generation approach. Experimental results indicate that summaries generated using evidence-based queries achieve competitive ROUGE scores compared to those generated from the original queries.