We study the problem of opinion highlights generation from large volumes of user reviews, often exceeding thousands per entity, where existing methods either fail to scale or produce generic, one-size-fits-all summaries that overlook personalized needs. To tackle this, we introduce OpinioRAG, a scalable, training-free framework that combines RAG-based evidence retrieval with LLMs to efficiently produce tailored summaries. Additionally, we propose novel reference-free verification metrics designed for sentiment-rich domains, where accurately capturing opinions and sentiment alignment is essential. These metrics offer a fine-grained, context-sensitive assessment of factual consistency. To facilitate evaluation, we contribute the first large-scale dataset of long-form user reviews, comprising entities with over a thousand reviews each, paired with unbiased expert summaries and manually annotated queries. Through extensive experiments, we identify key challenges, provide actionable insights into improving systems, pave the way for future research, and position OpinioRAG as a robust framework for generating accurate, relevant, and structured summaries at scale.

Multi-source Opinion Summarization (M-OS) extends beyond traditional opinion summarization by incorporating additional sources of product metadata such as descriptions, key features, specifications, and ratings, alongside reviews. This integration results in comprehensive summaries that capture both subjective opinions and objective product attributes essential for informed decision-making. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant success in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, their potential in M-OS remains largely unexplored. Additionally, the lack of evaluation datasets for this task has impeded further advancements. To bridge this gap, we introduce M-OS-EVAL, a benchmark dataset for evaluating multi-source opinion summaries across 7 key dimensions: fluency, coherence, relevance, faithfulness, aspect coverage, sentiment consistency, specificity. Our results demonstrate that M-OS significantly enhances user engagement, as evidenced by a user study in which, on average, 87% of participants preferred M-OS over opinion summaries. Our experiments demonstrate that factually enriched summaries enhance user engagement. Notably, M-OS-PROMPTS exhibit stronger alignment with human judgment, achieving an average Spearman correlation of \r{ho} = 0.74, which surpasses the performance of previous methodologies.

Reviews are valuable resources for customers making purchase decisions in online shopping. However, it is impractical for customers to go over the vast number of reviews and manually conclude the prominent opinions, which prompts the need for automated opinion summarization systems. Previous approaches, either extractive or abstractive, face challenges in automatically producing grounded aspect-centric summaries. In this paper, we propose a novel summarization system that not only captures predominant opinions from an aspect perspective with supporting evidence, but also adapts to varying domains without relying on a pre-defined set of aspects. Our proposed framework, ASESUM, summarizes viewpoints relevant to the critical aspects of a product by extracting aspect-centric arguments and measuring their salience and validity. We conduct experiments on a real-world dataset to demonstrate the superiority of our approach in capturing diverse perspectives of the original reviews compared to new and existing methods.

Personalized opinion summarization is crucial as it considers individual user interests while generating product summaries. Recent studies show that although large language models demonstrate powerful text summarization and evaluation capabilities without the need for training data, they face difficulties in personalized tasks involving long texts. To address this, \textbf{Rehearsal}, a personalized opinion summarization framework via LLMs-based role-playing is proposed. Having the model act as the user, the model can better understand the user's personalized needs. Additionally, a role-playing supervisor and practice process are introduced to improve the role-playing ability of the LLMs, leading to a better expression of user needs. Furthermore, through suggestions from virtual users, the summary generation is intervened, ensuring that the generated summary includes information of interest to the user, thus achieving personalized summary generation. Experiment results demonstrate that our method can effectively improve the level of personalization in large model-generated summaries.

Global partisan hostility and polarization has increased, and this polarization is heightened around presidential elections. Models capable of generating accurate summaries of diverse perspectives can help reduce such polarization by exposing users to alternative perspectives. In this work, we introduce a novel dataset and task for independently summarizing each political perspective in a set of passages from opinionated news articles. For this task, we propose a framework for evaluating different dimensions of perspective summary performance. We benchmark 10 models of varying sizes and architectures through both automatic and human evaluation. While recent models like GPT-4o perform well on this task, we find that all models struggle to generate summaries faithful to the intended perspective. Our analysis of summaries focuses on how extraction behavior depends on the features of the input documents.

Online reviews play a pivotal role in influencing consumer decisions across various domains, from purchasing products to selecting hotels or restaurants. However, the sheer volume of reviews -- often containing repetitive or irrelevant content -- leads to information overload, making it challenging for users to extract meaningful insights. Traditional opinion summarization models face challenges in handling long inputs and large volumes of reviews, while newer Large Language Model (LLM) approaches often fail to generate accurate and faithful summaries. To address those challenges, this paper introduces (1) a new dataset of long-form user reviews, each entity comprising over a thousand reviews, (2) two training-free LLM-based summarization approaches that scale to long inputs, and (3) automatic evaluation metrics. Our dataset of user reviews is paired with in-depth and unbiased critical summaries by domain experts, serving as a reference for evaluation. Additionally, our novel reference-free evaluation metrics provide a more granular, context-sensitive assessment of summary faithfulness. We benchmark several open-source and closed-source LLMs using our methods. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs still face challenges in balancing sentiment and format adherence in long-form summaries, though open-source models can narrow the gap when relevant information is retrieved in a focused manner.

Opinion summarization in e-commerce encapsulates the collective views of numerous users about a product based on their reviews. Typically, a product on an e-commerce platform has thousands of reviews, each review comprising around 10-15 words. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown proficiency in summarization tasks, they struggle to handle such a large volume of reviews due to context limitations. To mitigate, we propose a scalable framework called Xl-OpSumm that generates summaries incrementally. However, the existing test set, AMASUM has only 560 reviews per product on average. Due to the lack of a test set with thousands of reviews, we created a new test set called Xl-Flipkart by gathering data from the Flipkart website and generating summaries using GPT-4. Through various automatic evaluations and extensive analysis, we evaluated the framework's efficiency on two datasets, AMASUM and Xl-Flipkart. Experimental results show that our framework, Xl-OpSumm powered by Llama-3-8B-8k, achieves an average ROUGE-1 F1 gain of 4.38% and a ROUGE-L F1 gain of 3.70% over the next best-performing model.

Scientific peer review is essential for the quality of academic publications. However, the increasing number of paper submissions to conferences has strained the reviewing process. This surge poses a burden on area chairs who have to carefully read an ever-growing volume of reviews and discern each reviewer's main arguments as part of their decision process. In this paper, we introduce \sys, a summarization method designed to offer a concise yet comprehensive overview of scholarly reviews. Unlike traditional consensus-based methods, \sys extracts both common and unique opinions from the reviews. We introduce novel uniqueness scores based on the Rational Speech Act framework to identify relevant sentences in the reviews. Our method aims to provide a pragmatic glimpse into all reviews, offering a balanced perspective on their opinions. Our experimental results with both automatic metrics and human evaluation show that \sys generates more discriminative summaries than baseline methods in terms of human evaluation while achieving comparable performance with these methods in terms of automatic metrics.

Evaluation of opinion summaries using conventional reference-based metrics rarely provides a holistic evaluation and has been shown to have a relatively low correlation with human judgments. Recent studies suggest using Large Language Models (LLMs) as reference-free metrics for NLG evaluation, however, they remain unexplored for opinion summary evaluation. Moreover, limited opinion summary evaluation datasets inhibit progress. To address this, we release the SUMMEVAL-OP dataset covering 7 dimensions related to the evaluation of opinion summaries: fluency, coherence, relevance, faithfulness, aspect coverage, sentiment consistency, and specificity. We investigate Op-I-Prompt a dimension-independent prompt, and Op-Prompts, a dimension-dependent set of prompts for opinion summary evaluation. Experiments indicate that Op-I-Prompt emerges as a good alternative for evaluating opinion summaries achieving an average Spearman correlation of 0.70 with humans, outperforming all previous approaches. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to investigate LLMs as evaluators on both closed-source and open-source models in the opinion summarization domain.

Automatic summarization is the process of reducing a text document in order to generate a summary that retains the most important points of the original document. In this work, we study two problems - i) summarizing a text document as set of keywords/caption, for image recommedation, ii) generating opinion summary which good mix of relevancy and sentiment with the text document. Intially, we present our work on an recommending images for enhancing a substantial amount of existing plain text news articles. We use probabilistic models and word similarity heuristics to generate captions and extract Key-phrases which are re-ranked using a rank aggregation framework with relevance feedback mechanism. We show that such rank aggregation and relevant feedback which are typically used in Tagging Documents, Text Information Retrieval also helps in improving image retrieval. These queries are fed to the Yahoo Search Engine to obtain relevant images 1. Our proposed method is observed to perform better than all existing baselines. Additonally, We propose a set of submodular functions for opinion summarization. Opinion summarization has built in it the tasks of summarization and sentiment detection. However, it is not easy to detect sentiment and simultaneously extract summary. The two tasks conflict in the sense that the demand of compression may drop sentiment bearing sentences, and the demand of sentiment detection may bring in redundant sentences. However, using submodularity we show how to strike a balance between the two requirements. Our functions generate summaries such that there is good correlation between document sentiment and summary sentiment along with good ROUGE score. We also compare the performances of the proposed submodular functions.