Evaluation of Automatic Text Summarization - KTH

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 CONTENTS 3 Paper 2 37 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.2 Precision and Recall in Information Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.3 The KTH News Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.4 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.6 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.7 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4 Paper 3 47 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.2 Constructing the Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.3 Downloading and Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.4 Annotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.7 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5 Paper 4 57 5.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.2 Introducing SweSum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5.3 Working Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5.4 Enter SweNam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5.5 Creating a Gold Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5.6 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.6.1 Reference Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.6.2 Loss of Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5.6.3 Condensed Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.6.4 Over-explicitness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.8 Demonstrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.9 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Index 68
Chapter 1 Summaries and the Process of Summarization 1.1 Introduction Text summarization (or rather, automatic text summarization) is the technique where a computer automatically creates an abstract, or summary, of one or more texts. The initial interest in automatic shortening of texts was spawned during the sixties in American research libraries. A large amount of scientific papers and books were to be digitally stored and made searchable. However, the storage capacity was very limited and full papers and books could not be fit into databases those days. Therefore summaries were stored, indexed and made searchable. Sometimes the papers or books already had summaries attached to them, but in cases were no readymade summary was available one had to be created. Thus, the technique has been developed for many years (see Luhn 1958, Edmundson 1969, Salton 1988) and in recent years, with the increased use of the Internet, there have been an awakening interest for summarization techniques. Today the situation is quite the opposite from the situation in the sixties. Today storage is cheap and seemingly limitless. Digitally stored information is available in abundance and in a myriad of forms to an extent as to making it near impossible to manually search, sift and choose which information one should incorporate. This information must instead be filtered and extracted in order to avoiding drowning in it. 1.1.1 The World According to ISO According to the documentation standard ISO 215:1986, a summary is a “brief restatement within the document (usually at the end) of its salient findings and conclusions, and is intended to complete the orientation of a reader who has studied the preceding text” while an abstract is, according to the same standard, a “Short representation of the content of a document without interpretation or criticism”. In this paper, however, they will be used somewhat interchangeably. In the field of 3
Page 1 and 2: Evaluation of Automatic Text Summar
Page 3 and 4: Abstract Summaries are an important
Page 5 and 6: List of Papers and How to read this
Page 7: Contents Contents 1 1 Summaries and
Page 11 and 12: 1.2. AUTOMATIC TEXT SUMMARIZATION 5
Page 13 and 14: 1.3. SUMMARIZATION EVALUATION 7 Pur
Page 15 and 16: 1.3. SUMMARIZATION EVALUATION 9 tex
Page 17 and 18: 1.3. SUMMARIZATION EVALUATION 11 1.
Page 19 and 20: 1.3. SUMMARIZATION EVALUATION 13 te
Page 21 and 22: 1.4. OVERVIEW OF THE PAPERS INCLUDE
Page 23 and 24: 1.4. OVERVIEW OF THE PAPERS INCLUDE
Page 25 and 26: 1.6. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE
Page 27 and 28: 1.7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 21 Donaway, R. L.
Page 29 and 30: 1.7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 23 Luhn, H. P. (1
Page 31: 1.7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 25
Page 34 and 35: 28 CHAPTER 2. PAPER 1
Page 36 and 37: 30 CHAPTER 2. PAPER 1 corpus we hav
Page 38 and 39: 32 CHAPTER 2. PAPER 1 other hand av
Page 40 and 41: 34 CHAPTER 2. PAPER 1 Dahlqvist, B.
Page 46 and 47: 40 CHAPTER 3. PAPER 2 in terms of t
Page 48 and 49: 42 CHAPTER 3. PAPER 2 Xu and Croft
Page 50 and 51: 44 CHAPTER 3. PAPER 2 Precision/Rec
Page 56 and 57: 50 CHAPTER 4. PAPER 3 at language s
Page 58 and 59:
52 CHAPTER 4. PAPER 3 4.4 Annotatio
Page 60 and 61:
54 CHAPTER 4. PAPER 3 percent impro
Page 62 and 63:
56 CHAPTER 4. PAPER 3
Page 64 and 65:
58 CHAPTER 5. PAPER 4
Page 66 and 67:
60 CHAPTER 5. PAPER 4 at concept le
Page 68 and 69:
62 CHAPTER 5. PAPER 4 of all man-ma
Page 70 and 71:
64 CHAPTER 5. PAPER 4 only the most
Page 72 and 73:
66 CHAPTER 5. PAPER 4 SweSum (stand
Page 74 and 75:
Index abstract, 4 abstraction, 5 ag
show all

Evaluation of Automatic Text Summarization - KTH

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?