Reasoning or Not? A Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning LLMs for Dialogue Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02145v1
• Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 21:02:41 GMT
• Title: Reasoning or Not? A Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning LLMs for Dialogue Summarization
• Authors: Keyan Jin, Yapeng Wang, Leonel Santos, Tao Fang, Xu Yang, Sio Kei Im, Hugo Gonçalo Oliveira,
• Abstract summary: We present the first comprehensive and systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs and non-reasoning LLMs.<n>Contrary to trends in other reasoning-intensive tasks, our findings show that explicit stepwise reasoning does not consistently improve dialogue summarization quality.
• Score: 9.994839971567542
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Dialogue summarization is a challenging task with significant practical value in customer service, meeting analysis, and conversational AI. Although large language models (LLMs) have achieved substantial progress in summarization tasks, the performance of step-by-step reasoning architectures-specifically Long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementations such as OpenAI-o1 and DeepSeek-R1-remains unexplored for dialogue scenarios requiring concurrent abstraction and conciseness. In this work, we present the first comprehensive and systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs and non-reasoning LLMs across three major paradigms-generic, role-oriented, and query-oriented dialogue summarization. Our study spans diverse languages, domains, and summary lengths, leveraging strong benchmarks (SAMSum, DialogSum, CSDS, and QMSum) and advanced evaluation protocols that include both LLM-based automatic metrics and human-inspired criteria. Contrary to trends in other reasoning-intensive tasks, our findings show that explicit stepwise reasoning does not consistently improve dialogue summarization quality. Instead, reasoning LLMs are often prone to verbosity, factual inconsistencies, and less concise summaries compared to their non-reasoning counterparts. Through scenario-specific analyses and detailed case studies, we further identify when and why explicit reasoning may fail to benefit-or even hinder-summarization in complex dialogue contexts. Our work provides new insights into the limitations of current reasoning LLMs and highlights the need for targeted modeling and evaluation strategies for real-world dialogue summarization.

Related papers

• What are they talking about? Benchmarking Large Language Models for Knowledge-Grounded Discussion Summarization [19.616500850017363]
  This work aims to address the limitation of outside observer confusion in existing dialogue summarization systems.<n>We model the task output as background and opinion summaries and define two standardized summarization patterns.<n>We evaluate 12 LLMs under structured-prompt and self-reflection paradigms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T15:52:24Z)
• DialogueReason: Rule-Based RL Sparks Dialogue Reasoning in LLMs [54.4857963044859]
  We propose DialogueReason, a reasoning paradigm that uncovers the lost roles in monologue-style reasoning models.<n>Our work consists of an analysis of monologue reasoning patterns and the development of a dialogue-based reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-11T16:39:58Z)
• Why Reasoning Matters? A Survey of Advancements in Multimodal Reasoning (v1) [66.51642638034822]
  Reasoning is central to human intelligence, enabling structured problem-solving across diverse tasks.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have greatly enhanced their reasoning abilities in arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic domains.<n>This paper offers a concise yet insightful overview of reasoning techniques in both textual and multimodal LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T04:04:56Z)
• Are LLMs Effective Negotiators? Systematic Evaluation of the Multifaceted Capabilities of LLMs in Negotiation Dialogues [4.738985706520995]
  This work aims to systematically analyze the multifaceted capabilities of LLMs across diverse dialogue scenarios. Our analysis highlights GPT-4's superior performance in many tasks while identifying specific challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T06:11:03Z)
• Exploring the Factual Consistency in Dialogue Comprehension of Large Language Models [51.75805497456226]
  This work focuses on the factual consistency issue with the help of the dialogue summarization task. Our evaluation shows that, on average, 26.8% of the summaries generated by LLMs contain factual inconsistency. To stimulate and enhance the dialogue comprehension ability of LLMs, we propose a fine-tuning paradigm with auto-constructed multi-task data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T09:32:12Z)
• Improving Large Language Models in Event Relation Logical Prediction [33.88499005859982]
  Event relation extraction is a challenging task that demands thorough semantic understanding and rigorous logical reasoning. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth investigation to systematically explore the capability of LLMs in understanding and applying event relation logic. Our study reveals that LLMs are not logically consistent reasoners, which results in their suboptimal performance on tasks that need rigorous reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T14:53:06Z)
• Self-Explanation Prompting Improves Dialogue Understanding in Large Language Models [52.24756457516834]
  We propose a novel "Self-Explanation" prompting strategy to enhance the comprehension abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) This task-agnostic approach requires the model to analyze each dialogue utterance before task execution, thereby improving performance across various dialogue-centric tasks. Experimental results from six benchmark datasets confirm that our method consistently outperforms other zero-shot prompts and matches or exceeds the efficacy of few-shot prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-22T15:41:34Z)
• Re-Reading Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [87.46256176508376]
  We introduce a simple, yet general and effective prompting method, Re2, to enhance the reasoning capabilities of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike most thought-eliciting prompting methods, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Re2 shifts the focus to the input by processing questions twice, thereby enhancing the understanding process. We evaluate Re2 on extensive reasoning benchmarks across 14 datasets, spanning 112 experiments, to validate its effectiveness and generality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T14:36:23Z)
• Simple LLM Prompting is State-of-the-Art for Robust and Multilingual Dialogue Evaluation [7.767020408405403]
  We propose a novel framework that takes advantage of the strengths of current evaluation models with the newly-established paradigm of prompting Large Language Models (LLMs) Empirical results show our framework achieves state of the art results in terms of mean Spearman correlation scores across several benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T15:19:28Z)
• Prompting and Evaluating Large Language Models for Proactive Dialogues: Clarification, Target-guided, and Non-collaboration [72.04629217161656]
  This work focuses on three aspects of proactive dialogue systems: clarification, target-guided, and non-collaborative dialogues. To trigger the proactivity of LLMs, we propose the Proactive Chain-of-Thought prompting scheme.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T02:49:35Z)
• Cue-CoT: Chain-of-thought Prompting for Responding to In-depth Dialogue Questions with LLMs [59.74002011562726]
  We propose a novel linguistic cue-based chain-of-thoughts (textitCue-CoT) to provide a more personalized and engaging response. We build a benchmark with in-depth dialogue questions, consisting of 6 datasets in both Chinese and English. Empirical results demonstrate our proposed textitCue-CoT method outperforms standard prompting methods in terms of both textithelpfulness and textitacceptability on all datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T16:27:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.