Multi-document news summarisation systems are increasingly adopted for their convenience in processing vast daily news content, making fairness across diverse political perspectives critical. However, these systems can exhibit political bias through unequal representation of viewpoints, disproportionate emphasis on certain perspectives, and systematic underrepresentation of minority voices. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of such bias in multi-document news summarisation using FairNews, a dataset of complete news articles with political orientation labels, examining how large language models (LLMs) handle sources with varying political leanings across 13 models and five fairness metrics. We investigate both baseline model performance and effectiveness of various debiasing interventions, including prompt-based and judge-based approaches. Our findings challenge the assumption that larger models yield fairer outputs, as mid-sized variants consistently outperform their larger counterparts, offering the best balance of fairness and efficiency. Prompt-based debiasing proves highly model dependent, while entity sentiment emerges as the most stubborn fairness dimension, resisting all intervention strategies tested. These results demonstrate that fairness in multi-document news summarisation requires multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks and targeted, architecture-aware debiasing rather than simply scaling up.

Model compression through post-training pruning offers a way to reduce model size and computational requirements without significantly impacting model performance. However, the effect of pruning on the fairness of LLM-generated summaries remains unexplored, particularly for opinion summarisation where biased outputs could influence public views. In this paper, we present a comprehensive empirical analysis of opinion summarisation, examining three state-of-the-art pruning methods and various calibration sets across three open-source LLMs using four fairness metrics. Our systematic analysis reveals that pruning methods have larger impact on fairness than calibration sets. Building on these insights, we propose High Gradient Low Activation (HGLA) pruning, which identifies and removes parameters that are redundant for input processing but influential in output generation. Our experiments demonstrate that HGLA can better maintain or even improve fairness compared to existing methods, showing promise across models and tasks where traditional methods have limitations. Our human evaluation shows HGLA-generated outputs are fairer than existing state-of-the-art pruning methods.

Individuals express diverse opinions, a fair summary should represent these viewpoints comprehensively.Previous research on fairness in opinion summarisation using large language models (LLMs) relied on hyperparameter tuning or providing ground truth distributional information in prompts. However, these methods face practical limitations: end-users rarely modify default model parameters, and accurate distributional information is often unavailable. Building upon cognitive science research demonstrating that frequency-based representations reduce systematic biases in human statistical reasoning by making reference classes explicit and reducing cognitive load, this study investigates whether frequency framed prompting (REFER) can similarly enhance fairness in LLM opinion summarisation. Through systematic experimentation with different prompting frameworks, we adapted techniques known to improve human reasoning to elicit more effective information processing in language models compared to abstract probabilistic representations. Our results demonstrate that REFER enhances fairness in language models when summarising opinions. This effect is particularly pronounced in larger language models and using stronger reasoning instructions.

Opinion summarisation aims to summarise the salient information and opinions presented in documents such as product reviews, discussion forums, and social media texts into short summaries that enable users to effectively understand the opinions therein.Generating biased summaries has the risk of potentially swaying public opinion. Previous studies focused on studying bias in opinion summarisation using extractive models, but limited research has paid attention to abstractive summarisation models. In this study, using political bias as a case study, we first establish a methodology to quantify bias in abstractive models, then trace it from the pre-trained models to the task of summarising social media opinions using different models and adaptation methods. We find that most models exhibit intrinsic bias. Using a social media text summarisation dataset and contrasting various adaptation methods, we find that tuning a smaller number of parameters is less biased compared to standard fine-tuning; however, the diversity of topics in training data used for fine-tuning is critical.

Opinion summarisation is a task that aims to condense the information presented in the source documents while retaining the core message and opinions. A summary that only represents the majority opinions will leave the minority opinions unrepresented in the summary. In this paper, we use the stance towards a certain target as an opinion. We study bias in opinion summarisation from the perspective of opinion diversity, which measures whether the model generated summary can cover a diverse set of opinions. In addition, we examine opinion similarity, a measure of how closely related two opinions are in terms of their stance on a given topic, and its relationship with opinion diversity. Through the lense of stances towards a topic, we examine opinion diversity and similarity using three debatable topics under COVID-19. Experimental results on these topics revealed that a higher degree of similarity of opinions did not indicate good diversity or fairly cover the various opinions originally presented in the source documents. We found that BART and ChatGPT can better capture diverse opinions presented in the source documents.

Summarisation of reviews aims at compressing opinions expressed in multiple review documents into a concise form while still covering the key opinions. Despite the advancement in summarisation models, evaluation metrics for opinionated text summaries lag behind and still rely on lexical-matching metrics such as ROUGE. In this paper, we propose to use the question-answering(QA) approach to evaluate summaries of opinions in reviews. We propose to identify opinion-bearing text spans in the reference summary to generate QA pairs so as to capture salient opinions. A QA model is then employed to probe the candidate summary to evaluate information overlap between candidate and reference summaries. We show that our metric RunQA, Review Summary Evaluation via Question Answering, correlates well with human judgments in terms of coverage and focus of information. Finally, we design an adversarial task and demonstrate that the proposed approach is more robust than metrics in the literature for ranking summaries.