Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40821952›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Divide and summarize: improve SLM text summarization.

Alexandre Bailly, Antoine Saubin, Gabriel Kocevar, Jonathan Bodin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alexandre BaillySeenovate, Paris, France.
Antoine SaubinSeenovate, Paris, France.
Gabriel KocevarSeenovate, Paris, France.
Jonathan BodinSeenovate, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Text summarization is a longstanding challenge in natural language processing, with recent advancements driven by the adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Small Language Models (SLMs). Despite these developments, issues such as the "Lost in the Middle" problem-where LLMs tend to overlook information in the middle of lengthy prompts-persist. Traditional summarization, often termed the "Stuff" method, processes an entire text in a single pass. In contrast, the "Map" method divides the text into segments, summarizes each independently, and then synthesizes these partial summaries into a final output, potentially mitigating the "Lost in the Middle" issue. This study investigates whether the Map method outperforms the Stuff method for texts that fit within the context window of SLMs and assesses its effectiveness in addressing the "Lost in the Middle" problem. Methods: We conducted a two-part investigation: first, a simulation study using generated texts, paired with an automated fact-retrieval evaluation to eliminate the need for human assessment; second, a practical study summarizing scientific papers. Results: Results from both studies demonstrate that the Map method produces summaries that are at least as accurate as those from the Stuff method. Notably, the Map method excels at retaining key facts from the beginning and middle of texts, unlike the Stuff method, suggesting its superiority for SLM-based summarization of smaller texts. Additionally, SLMs using the Map method achieved performance comparable to LLMs using the Stuff method, highlighting its practical utility. Discussion: Both theoretical and practical studies suggest that using Map method for summarization with SLM allowed to address the "Lost in the Middle" problem and outperform Stuff method.

Indexed as

automatic evaluationLost in the Middlesmall language modelstext generationtext summarization

Identifiers

PMID40821952
PMCPMC12354567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.