# Information Satisfaction: A Reader-Centered Axis for Summarization Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14457 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14457/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 42 of its 73 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 42)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04696/) (2020)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12626/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.05685/) (2018)
- [MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.02622/) (2019)
- [SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09525/) (2021)
- [Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04228/) (2020)
- [QMSum: A New Benchmark for Query-based Multi-domain Meeting Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.05938/) (2021)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05335/) (2023)
- [News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.12356/) (2022)
- [Newsroom: A Dataset of 1.3 Million Summaries with Diverse Extractive Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.11283/) (2018)
- [Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.13346/) (2021)
- [QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.12693/) (2021)
- [PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.02547/) (2023)
- [Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.08960/) (2019)
- [Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07100/) (2020)
- [TLDR: Extreme Summarization of Scientific Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.15011/) (2020)
- [Controllable Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.05217/) (2017)
- [Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12854/) (2022)
- [CTRLsum: Towards Generic Controllable Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.04281/) (2020)
- [Answers Unite! Unsupervised Metrics for Reinforced Summarization Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01610/) (2019)
- [Fill in the BLANC: Human-free quality estimation of document summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.09836/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.