Summarization is Not Dead Yet

arXiv:2606.08000 · cs.CL, cs.AI · Submitted 2026-06-06 · Read on arXiv

cs.CL, cs.AI

Submitted: 2026-06-06

Updated: 2026-08-31

Comments: EMNLP 2026 Main & Long Conference Paper

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

The gist: The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references, raising questions about whether summarization remains an

Terminology

Abstract

The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references, raising questions about whether summarization remains an open research problem. We re-examine this narrative through a multi-track evaluation covering diverse datasets and state-of-the-art LLMs, combining controlled human assessment, bias-mitigated LLM-as-Judge protocols, factuality verification against external knowledge, and corpus-level linguistic analysis. Our findings reveal a more nuanced landscape in which human references continue to demonstrate advantages in informativeness and faithfulness, whereas LLM outputs are preferred mainly for surface-level coherence and fluency. Factuality verification indicates that human references remain more reliable, particularly for claims involving reasoning or synthesis, and linguistic analysis uncovers a pattern of stylistic homogeneity across different models. These observations suggest that current LLMs have raised the floor of summarization quality, but the ceiling of their performance remains below human capabilities.

Sources

Related papers