Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance at zero-shot generation of abstractive summaries for given articles. However, little is known about the robustness of such a process of zero-shot summarization.To bridge this gap, we propose *relevance paraphrasing*, a simple strategy that can be used to measure the robustness of LLMs as summarizers. The relevance paraphrasing approach identifies the most *relevant* sentences that contribute to generating an ideal summary, and then *paraphrases* these inputs to obtain a minimally perturbed dataset. Then, by evaluating model performance for summarization on both the original and perturbed datasets, we can assess the LLM’s one aspect of robustness. We conduct extensive experiments with relevance paraphrasing on 4 diverse datasets, as well as 4 LLMs of different sizes (GPT-3.5-Turbo, Llama-2-13B, Mistral-7B-v1, and Dolly-v2-7B). Our results indicate that LLMs are not consistent summarizers for the minimally perturbed articles, necessitating further improvements.

We characterize and study zero-shot abstractive summarization in Large Language Models (LLMs) by measuring position bias, which we propose as a general formulation of the more restrictive lead bias phenomenon studied previously in the literature. Position bias captures the tendency of a model unfairly prioritizing information from certain parts of the input text over others, leading to undesirable behavior. Through numerous experiments on four diverse real-world datasets, we study position bias in multiple LLM models such as GPT 3.5-Turbo, Llama-2, and Dolly-v2, as well as state-of-the-art pretrained encoder-decoder abstractive summarization models such as Pegasus and BART. Our findings lead to novel insights and discussion on performance and position bias of models for zero-shot summarization tasks.