It's not "editorialized" in the sense that there are no humans involved.
There are two types of automatic document summarization methods, abstractive and extractive.
Abstractive analyze the original and then synthesize a summary, whereas extractive summaries are concatenated projections (sequences of text spans) from the original text.
The phenomenon you observed suggests this was produced by an abstractive summarizer. Pre-trained neural language models for abstractive summarizations that create pieces of new text that are untrue or make sense is a phenomenon often referred to as "hallucinating" models. In my research, I found extractive summaries are more suitable for professional applications; extractive models never hallucinate, and the worst mistakes are (1) leaving out an important part and (2) creating misunderstandings through left out context.
The leaders in the field of summarization research do not believe there can be something like a "universal summarizer", because the same document can be summarized for very different purposes, even by the same person on different occasions). For example, a lawyer may read a case summary one time to get up to speed about what her client got accused of in a lower court trial, and ten years later she may refer so said case again for a trial procedural detail that re-occurred in another case on a completely different subject matter.
There are two types of automatic document summarization methods, abstractive and extractive.
Abstractive analyze the original and then synthesize a summary, whereas extractive summaries are concatenated projections (sequences of text spans) from the original text.
The phenomenon you observed suggests this was produced by an abstractive summarizer. Pre-trained neural language models for abstractive summarizations that create pieces of new text that are untrue or make sense is a phenomenon often referred to as "hallucinating" models. In my research, I found extractive summaries are more suitable for professional applications; extractive models never hallucinate, and the worst mistakes are (1) leaving out an important part and (2) creating misunderstandings through left out context.
The leaders in the field of summarization research do not believe there can be something like a "universal summarizer", because the same document can be summarized for very different purposes, even by the same person on different occasions). For example, a lawyer may read a case summary one time to get up to speed about what her client got accused of in a lower court trial, and ten years later she may refer so said case again for a trial procedural detail that re-occurred in another case on a completely different subject matter.