Evaluating Summaries of Social Media Posts: Balancing Fairness for Readers and Authors

Text summarization has a wide range of applications, from condensing lengthy documents to summarizing user-generated content (such as tweets, Facebook posts, and Reddit discussions) that reflect diverse viewpoints on socially significant topics. Traditionally, summarization has been considered a reader-centric task, and algorithms are evaluated against human-written reference summaries using metrics such as the ROUGE score. However, this approach has two primary limitations when applied to user-generated content, especially written on sensitive issues. First, through surveys with participants from various countries, we demonstrate that human-written reference summaries can contain implicit biases. These biases introduce significant variations in the evaluation of summarization algorithms, raising concerns about their reliability in identifying summaries that effectively meet reader expectations. Second, we show that algorithmically generated summaries, as ranked by traditional evaluation methods, often fail to align with authors’ preferences. These issues render the existing summary evaluation framework suboptimal for both readers and the authors of the content being summarized. In this work, by reimagining summarization of user-generated content as a two-sided problem, we emphasize the importance of satisfying both readers and authors. Specifically, we take a two-pronged approach to tackle the issues with existing evaluation setup: (i) we introduce the concept of inequality in reader satisfaction to tackle the implicit biases in reference summaries; and (ii) we propose a novel evaluation framework based on satisfying the authors of the content. More specifically, we present an author satisfaction-based evaluation metric CROSSEM which, we show empirically, can complement the current summary evaluation paradigm. This work represents the first attempt to develop a fair summary evaluation framework for social media posts and is likely to spark future research in this domain.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACM Transactions on the Web
Published
2026-07-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3833377
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating Summaries of Social Media Posts: Balancing Fairness for Readers and Authors

Abhijnan Chakraborty, Garima Chhikara, Saptarshi Ghosh, Kripabandhu Ghosh
ACM Transactions on the Web
Topic Modeling
article

Evaluating Summaries of Social Media Posts: Balancing Fairness for Readers and Authors

Abhijnan Chakraborty, Garima Chhikara, Saptarshi Ghosh, Kripabandhu Ghosh
article en

Abstract

Text summarization has a wide range of applications, from condensing lengthy documents to summarizing user-generated content (such as tweets, Facebook posts, and Reddit discussions) that reflect diverse viewpoints on socially significant topics. Traditionally, summarization has been considered a reader-centric task, and algorithms are evaluated against human-written reference summaries using metrics such as the ROUGE score. However, this approach has two primary limitations when applied to user-generated content, especially written on sensitive issues. First, through surveys with participants from various countries, we demonstrate that human-written reference summaries can contain implicit biases. These biases introduce significant variations in the evaluation of summarization algorithms, raising concerns about their reliability in identifying summaries that effectively meet reader expectations. Second, we show that algorithmically generated summaries, as ranked by traditional evaluation methods, often fail to align with authors’ preferences. These issues render the existing summary evaluation framework suboptimal for both readers and the authors of the content being summarized. In this work, by reimagining summarization of user-generated content as a two-sided problem, we emphasize the importance of satisfying both readers and authors. Specifically, we take a two-pronged approach to tackle the issues with existing evaluation setup: (i) we introduce the concept of inequality in reader satisfaction to tackle the implicit biases in reference summaries; and (ii) we propose a novel evaluation framework based on satisfying the authors of the content. More specifically, we present an author satisfaction-based evaluation metric CROSSEM which, we show empirically, can complement the current summary evaluation paradigm. This work represents the first attempt to develop a fair summary evaluation framework for social media posts and is likely to spark future research in this domain.

ACM Transactions on the Web
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata (IN), Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IN), Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IN), Delhi Technological University (IN)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Topic Modeling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.