CADS: A Systematic Literature Review on the Challenges of Abstractive Dialogue Summarization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Abstractive dialogue summarization is the task of distilling conversations into informative and concise summaries. Although reviews have been conducted on this topic, there is a lack of comprehensive work detailing the challenges of dialogue summarization, unifying the differing understanding of the task, and aligning proposed techniques, datasets, and evaluation metrics with the challenges. This article summarizes the research on Transformer-based abstractive summarization for English dialogues by systematically reviewing 1262 unique research papers published between 2019 and 2024, relying on the Semantic Scholar and DBLP databases. We cover the main challenges present in dialog summarization (i.e., language, structure, comprehension, speaker, salience, and factuality) and link them to corresponding techniques such as graph-based approaches, additional training tasks, and planning strategies, which typically overly rely on BART-based encoder-decoder models. We find that while some challenges, like language, have seen considerable progress, mainly due to training methods, others, such as comprehension, factuality, and salience, remain difficult and hold significant research opportunities. We investigate how these approaches are typically assessed, covering the datasets for the subdomains of dialogue (e.g., meeting, medical), the established automatic metrics and human evaluation approaches for assessing scores and annotator agreement. We observe that only a few datasets span across all subdomains. The ROUGE metric is the most used, while human evaluation is frequently reported without sufficient detail on inner-annotator agreement and annotation guidelines. Additionally, we discuss the possible implications of the recently explored large language models and conclude that despite a potential shift in relevance and difficulty, our described challenge taxonomy remains relevant.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2024.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 5; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2024Tell me what I need to know: Exploring LLM-based (Personalized) Abstractive Multi-Source Meeting Summarizationcited by 9
- 2024What's Wrong? Refining Meeting Summaries with LLM Feedbackcited by 8
- 2025TrojanStego: Your Language Model Can Secretly Be A Steganographic Privacy Leaking Agentcited by 7
- 2025Summarizing Speech: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 5
- 2024Is my Meeting Summary Good? Estimating Quality with a Multi-LLM Evaluatorcited by 4
- 2025You need to MIMIC to get FAME: Solving Meeting Transcript Scarcity with a Multi-Agent Conversationscited by 2
- 2025EventWeave: A Dynamic Framework for Capturing Core and Supporting Events in Dialogue Systemscited by 2
- 2025What Are They Talking About? A Benchmark of Knowledge-Grounded Discussion Summarizationcited by 1
- 2026A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Empirical Study of LLMs for Conversation Summarizationcited by 1
- 2026A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Empirical Study of LLMs for Conversation Summarization14 Jun 2026
- 2025TrojanStego: Your Language Model Can Secretly Be A Steganographic Privacy Leaking Agent26 May 2025
- 2025What Are They Talking About? A Benchmark of Knowledge-Grounded Discussion Summarization18 May 2025
- 2025Summarizing Speech: A Comprehensive Survey10 Apr 2025
- 2025EventWeave: A Dynamic Framework for Capturing Core and Supporting Events in Dialogue Systems29 Mar 2025
- 2025You need to MIMIC to get FAME: Solving Meeting Transcript Scarcity with a Multi-Agent Conversations18 Feb 2025
- 2024Is my Meeting Summary Good? Estimating Quality with a Multi-LLM Evaluator27 Nov 2024
- 2024Tell me what I need to know: Exploring LLM-based (Personalized) Abstractive Multi-Source Meeting Summarization18 Oct 2024
- 2024What's Wrong? Refining Meeting Summaries with LLM Feedback16 Jul 2024