Zajic, D.; Dorr, B.J.; Lin, J.; Schwartz, R.: Multi-candidate reduction : sentence compression as a tool for document summarization tasks (2007)
0.00
4.2247731E-4 = product of:
0.0063371593 = sum of:
0.004365201 = weight(_text_:in in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004365201 = score(doc=944,freq=4.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=944,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- This article examines the application of two single-document sentence compression techniques to the problem of multi-document summarization-a "parse-and-trim" approach and a statistical noisy-channel approach. We introduce the multi-candidate reduction (MCR) framework for multi-document summarization, in which many compressed candidates are generated for each source sentence. These candidates are then selected for inclusion in the final summary based on a combination of static and dynamic features. Evaluations demonstrate that sentence compression is a valuable component of a larger multi-document summarization framework.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1549-1570
Hobson, S.P.; Dorr, B.J.; Monz, C.; Schwartz, R.: Task-based evaluation of text summarization using Relevance Prediction (2007)
0.00
4.181838E-4 = product of:
0.0062727565 = sum of:
0.0045825066 = weight(_text_:in in 938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0045825066 = score(doc=938,freq=6.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 938, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=938)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=938,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 938, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=938)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- This article introduces a new task-based evaluation measure called Relevance Prediction that is a more intuitive measure of an individual's performance on a real-world task than interannotator agreement. Relevance Prediction parallels what a user does in the real world task of browsing a set of documents using standard search tools, i.e., the user judges relevance based on a short summary and then that same user - not an independent user - decides whether to open (and judge) the corresponding document. This measure is shown to be a more reliable measure of task performance than LDC Agreement, a current gold-standard based measure used in the summarization evaluation community. Our goal is to provide a stable framework within which developers of new automatic measures may make stronger statistical statements about the effectiveness of their measures in predicting summary usefulness. We demonstrate - as a proof-of-concept methodology for automatic metric developers - that a current automatic evaluation measure has a better correlation with Relevance Prediction than with LDC Agreement and that the significance level for detected differences is higher for the former than for the latter.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.6, S.1482-1499