2. CS276B Web Search and Mining  Lecture 14  Text Mining II  (includes slides borrowed from G. Neumann, M. Venkataramani, R. Altman, L. Hirschman, and D. Radev) Automated Text summarization Tutorial — COLING/ACL’98

3. 3... put a book on the scanner, turn the dial to ‘2 pages’, and read the result......download 1000 documents from the web, send them to the summarizer, and select the best ones by reading the summaries of the clusters......forward the Japanese email to the summarizer, select ‘1 par’, and skim the translated summary.

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11  What kinds of summaries do people want?  What are summarizing, abstracting, gisting,...?  How sophisticated must summ. systems be?  Are statistical techniques sufficient?  Or do we need symbolic techniques and deep understanding as well?  What milestones would mark quantum leaps in summarization theory and practice?  How do we measure summarization quality?

12.  Informative summary  Purpose: replace original document  Example: executive summary  Indicative summary  Purpose: support decision: do I want to read original document yes/no?  Example: Headline, scientific abstract

13. Information overload problem Increasing need for IR and automated text summarization systems Summarization: Process of distilling the most salient information from a source/sources for a particular user and task

14.  Summary : “a reductive transformation of source text to summary text through content condensation by selection and/or generalization on what is important in the source.” (Sparck Jones,1999)

15.  Transform text into an internal representation.  Detect important text units.  Generate summary  In extracts ▪ no generation ▪ information ordering, ▪ anaphora resolution (or avoiding anaphoric structures)  In abstracts ▪ text generation. ▪ Sentence fusion, ▪ paraphrasing, ▪ Natural Language Generation.

16. 16  Input (Sparck Jones 2007)  subject type: domain  genre: newspaper articles, editorials, letters, reports...  form: regular text structure; free-form  source size: single doc; multiple docs (few; many)  Purpose  situation: embedded in larger system (MT, IR) or not?  audience: focused or general  usage: IR, sorting, skimming...  Output  completeness: include all aspects, or focus on some?  format: paragraph, table, etc.  style: informative, indicative, aggregative, critical...

17. 17 Exercise: summarize the following texts for the following readers: text1: Coup Attempt text2: childrens’ story reader1: your friend, who knows nothing about South Africa. reader2: someone who lives in South Africa and knows the political position. reader3: your 4-year-old niece. reader4: the Library of Congress.

18.  Surface level: Shallow features  Term frequency statistics, position in text, presence of text from the title, cue words/phrases: e.g. “in summary”, “important”  Entity level: Model text entities and their relationship  Vocabulary overlap, distance between text units, co- occurence, syntactic structure, coreference  Discourse level: Model global structure of text  Document outlines, narrative stucture  Hybrid

19. 19  Indicative vs. informative...used for quick categorization vs. content processing.  Extract vs. abstract...lists fragments of text vs. re-phrases content coherently.  Generic vs. query-oriented...provides author’s view vs. reflects user’s interest.  Background vs. just-the-news...assumes reader’s prior knowledge is poor vs. up-to-date.  Single-document vs. multi-document source...based on one text vs. fuses together many texts.

20. 20 EXTRACTS ABSTRACTS ? MULTIDOCS ExtractAbstract Indicative Generic Background Query-oriented Just the news 10% 50% 100 % Very Brief Brief Long Headline Informative DOC QUERY CASE FRAMES TEMPLATES CORE CONCEPTS CORE EVENTS RELATIONSHIPS CLAUSE FRAGMENTS INDEX TERMS

21. 21 EXTRACTIONEXTRACTION INTERPRETATIONINTERPRETATION EXTRACTS ABSTRACTS ? CASE FRAMES TEMPLATES CORE CONCEPTS CORE EVENTS RELATIONSHIPS CLAUSE FRAGMENTS INDEX TERMS MULTIDOC EXTRACTS GENERATIONGENERATION FILTERINGFILTERING DOC EXTRACTS

22.  Algorithm for reading in many domains is: 1) read summary 2) decide whether relevant or not 3) if relevant: read whole document  Summary is gate-keeper for large number of documents.  Information overload  Often the summary is all that is read.  Human-generated summaries are expensive.

23. Goldstein et al. 1999

25.  Keyword summaries  Display most significant keywords  Easy to do  Hard to read, poor representation of content  Sentence extraction  Extract key sentences  Medium hard  Summaries often don’t read well  Good representation of content  Natural language understanding / generation  Build knowledge representation of text  Generate sentences summarizing content  Hard to do well  Something between the last two methods?

26.  Represent each sentence as a feature vector  Compute score based on features  Select n highest-ranking sentences  Present in order in which they occur in text.  Postprocessing to make summary more readable/concise  Eliminate redundant sentences  Anaphors/pronouns ▪ A woman walks. She smokes.  Delete subordinate clauses, parentheticals

27. Sigir95 paper on summarization by Kupiec, Pedersen, Chen Trainable sentence extraction Proposed algorithm is applied to its own description (the paper)

29.  Fixed-phrase feature  Certain phrases indicate summary, e.g. “in summary”  Paragraph feature  Paragraph initial/final more likely to be important.  Thematic word feature  Repetition is an indicator of importance  Uppercase word feature  Uppercase often indicates named entities. (Taylor)  Sentence length cut-off  Summary sentence should be > 5 words.

30.  Sentence length cut-off  Summary sentences have a minimum length.  Fixed-phrase feature  True for sentences with indicator phrase ▪ “in summary”, “in conclusion” etc.  Paragraph feature  Paragraph initial/medial/final  Thematic word feature  Do any of the most frequent content words occur?  Uppercase word feature  Is uppercase thematic word introduced?

31.  Hand-label sentences in training set (good/bad summary sentences)  Train classifier to distinguish good/bad summary sentences  Model used: Naïve Bayes  Can rank sentences according to score and show top n to user.

32.  Compare extracted sentences with sentences in abstracts

33.  Baseline (choose first n sentences): 24%  Overall performance (42-44%) not very good.  However, there is more than one good summary.

34.  Summarize more than one document  Harder but benefit is large (can’t scan 100s of docs)  To do well, need to adopt more specific strategy depending on document set.  Other components needed for a production system, e.g., manual post-editing.  DUC: government sponsored bake-off  200 or 400 word summaries  Longer → easier

35.  Single event/person tracked over a long time period  Elizabeth Taylor’s bout with pneumonia  Give extra weight to character/event  May need to include outcome (dates!)  Multiple events of a similar nature  Marathon runners and races  More broad brush, ignore dates  An issue with related events  Gun control  Identify key concepts and select sentences accordingly

36.  First, determine which type of summary to generate  Compute all pairwise similarities  Very dissimilar articles → multi-event (marathon)  Mostly similar articles  Is most frequent concept named entity?  Yes → single event/person (Taylor)  No → issue with related events (gun control)

38.  Ordering according to date  Intersection  Find concepts that occur repeatedly in a time chunk  Sentence generator

39.  Selection of good summary sentences  Elimination of redundant sentences  Replace anaphors/pronouns with noun phrases they refer to  Need coreference resolution  Delete non-central parts of sentences

41.  So far, we’ve look at generic summaries.  A generic summary makes no assumption about the reader’s interests.  Query-specific summaries are specialized for a single information need, the query.  Summarization is much easier if we have a description of what the user wants.

42.  Some genres are easy to summarize  Newswire stories  Inverted pyramid structure  The first n sentences are often the best summary of length n  Some genres are hard to summarize  Long documents (novels, the bible)  Scientific articles?  Trainable summarizers are genre-specific.

43.  Correct parsing of document format is critical.  Need to know headings, sequence, etc.  Limits of current technology  Some good summaries require natural language understanding  Example: President Bush’s nominees for ambassadorships ▪ Contributors to Bush’s campaign ▪ Veteran diplomats ▪ Others

44. 44. Summarization techniques

45. 45 Top-Down:  I know what I want!  User needs: only certain types of info  System needs: particular criteria of interest, used to focus search Bottom-Up:  I’m dead curious: what’s in the text?  User needs: anything that’s important  System needs: generic importance metrics, used to rate content

46. 46  Text location: title, position  Cue phrases  Word frequencies  Internal text cohesion:  word co-occurrences  local salience  co-reference of names, objects  lexical similarity  semantic rep/graph centrality  Discourse structure centrality  Information extraction templates  Query-driven extraction:  query expansion lists  co-reference with query names  lexical similarity to query Bottom-up methods Top-down methods

47. 47  Top-down: Query-driven focus  Criteria of interest encoded as search specs.  System uses specs to filter or analyze text portions.  Examples: templates with slots with semantic characteristics; termlists of important terms.  Bottom-up: Text-driven focus  Generic importance metrics encoded as strategies.  System applies strategies over rep of whole text.  Examples: degree of connectedness in semantic graphs; frequency of occurrence of tokens.

48. 48  IR task: Given a query, find the relevant document(s) from a large set of documents.  Summ-IR task: Given a query, find the relevant passage(s) from a set of passages (i.e., from one or more documents). Questions: 1. IR techniques work on large volumes of data; can they scale down accurately enough? 2. IR works on words; do abstracts require abstract representations? xx xxx xxxx x xx xxxx xx xxx x xxx xx xxx x xx x xxxx xxxx xx xx xxxx xxx xxx xx xx xxxx x xxx xx x xx xx xxxxx x x xx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx x x xxxxxxx xx x xxxxxx xxxx xx xx xxxxx xxx xx x xxxxx xxxxx xx xxx x xxxxx xxx

49. 49  IE task: Given a template and a text, find all the information relevant to each slot of the template and fill it in.  Summ-IE task: Given a query, select the best template, fill it in, and generate the contents. Questions: 1. IE works only for very particular templates; can it scale up? 2. What about information that doesn’t fit into any template—is this a generic limitation of IE? xx xxx xxxx x xx xxxx xx xxx x xxx xx xxx x xx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xx xx xxxx xxx xxx xx xx xxxx x xxx xx x xx xx xxxxx x x xx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx x x xxxxxxx xx x xxxxxx xxxx xx xx xxxxx xxx xx x xx xx xxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxx xxxxx xx xxx x xxxxx xxx Xxxxx: xxxx Xxx: xxxx Xxx: xx xxx Xx: xxxxx x Xxx: xx xxx Xx: x xxx xx Xx: xxx x Xxx: xx Xxx: x

50. 50 NLP/IE: Approach: try to ‘understand’ text—re-represent content using ‘deeper’ notation; then manipulate that. Need: rules for text analysis and manipulation, at all levels. Strengths: higher quality; supports abstracting. Weaknesses: speed; still needs to scale up to robust open- domain summarization. IR/Statistics: Approach: operate at lexical level—use word frequency, collocation counts, etc. Need: large amounts of text. Strengths: robust; good for query-oriented summaries. Weaknesses: lower quality; inability to manipulate information at abstract levels.

51. 51  Problem: What if neither IR-like nor IE-like methods work?  Solution:  semantic analysis of the text (NLP),  using adequate knowledge bases that support inference (AI). Mrs. Coolidge: “What did the preacher preach about?” Coolidge: “Sin.” Mrs. Coolidge: “What did he say?” Coolidge: “He’s against it.” –sometimes counting and templates are insufficient, –and then you need to do inference to understand. Word counting Inference

52. 52 Combine strengths of both paradigms…...use IE/NLP when you have suitable template(s),...use IR when you don’t… …but how exactly to do it?

53. 53  Word frequencies throughout the text  Position in the text  lead method; optimal position policy  title/heading method  Cue phrases in sentences  Cohesion: links among words  word co-occurrence  coreference  lexical chains  Discourse structure of the text  Information Extraction: parsing and analysis

54. 54  Claim: Important sentences contain words that occur “somewhat” frequently.  Method: Increase sentence score for each frequent word.  Evaluation: Straightforward approach empirically shown to be mostly detrimental in summarization systems. words Word frequency The resolving power of words (Luhn, 59)

55.  Computes measures of significance  Words:  Stemming differ,difference  bag of words  Sentences:  concentration of high- score words  Cutoff values established in experiments SIGNIFICANT WORDS ALL WORDS **** 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SENTENCE SCORE = 4 2 /7  2.3

56. 56  Claim: Important sentences occur at the beginning (and/or end) of texts.  Lead method: just take first sentence(s)!  Experiments:  In 85% of 200 individual paragraphs the topic sentences occurred in initial position and in 7% in final position (Baxendale, 58).  Only 13% of the paragraphs of contemporary writers start with topic sentences (Donlan, 80).

57.  Cue method:  stigma words (“hardly”, “impossible”)  bonus words (“significant”)  Key method:  similar to Luhn  Title method:  title + headings  Location method:  sentences under headings  sentences near beginning or end of document and/or paragraphs (also [Baxendale 58])

58. 58  Claim: Important sentences are located at positions that are genre-dependent; these positions can be determined automatically through training (Lin and Hovy, 97).  Corpus: 13000 newspaper articles (ZIFF corpus).  Step 1: For each article, determine overlap between sentences and the index terms for the article.  Step 2: Determine a partial ordering over the locations where sentences containing important words occur: Optimal Position Policy (OPP) OPP for ZIFF corpus: (T) > (P 2,S 1 ) > (P 3,S 1 ) > (P 2,S 2 ) > {(P 4,S 1 ),(P 5,S 1 ),(P 3,S 2 )} >… (T=title; P=paragraph; S=sentence) OPP for Wall Street Journal : (T)>(P 1,S 1 )>... OPP for ZIFF corpus: (T) > (P 2,S 1 ) > (P 3,S 1 ) > (P 2,S 2 ) > {(P 4,S 1 ),(P 5,S 1 ),(P 3,S 2 )} >… (T=title; P=paragraph; S=sentence) OPP for Wall Street Journal : (T)>(P 1,S 1 )>...

59. 59  Claim: Words in titles and headings are positively relevant to summarization.  Shown to be statistically valid at 99% level of significance (Edmundson, 68).  Empirically shown to be useful in summarization systems.

60. 60  Claim 1: Important sentences contain ‘bonus phrases’, such as significantly, In this paper we show, and In conclusion, while non-important sentences contain ‘stigma phrases’ such as hardly and impossible.  Claim 2: These phrases can be detected automatically (Kupiec et al. 95; Teufel and Moens 97).  Method: Add to sentence score if it contains a bonus phrase, penalize if it contains a stigma phrase.

61. 61  Claim: Important sentences/paragraphs are the highest connected entities in more or less elaborate semantic structures.  Classes of approaches  word co-occurrences;  local salience and grammatical relations;  co-reference;  lexical similarity (WordNet, lexical chains);  combinations of the above.

62. 62  Apply IR methods at the document level: texts are collections of paragraphs (Salton et al., 94; Mitra et al., 97; Buckley and Cardie, 97):  Use a traditional, IR-based, word similarity measure to determine for each paragraph P i the set S i of paragraphs that P i is related to.  Method:  determine relatedness score S i for each paragraph,  extract paragraphs with largest S i scores. P1P1 P2P2 P3P3 P4P4 P5P5 P6P6 P7P7 P8P8 P9P9

63. 63  Cornell’s Smart-based approach  expand original query  compare expanded query against paragraphs  select top three paragraphs (max 25% of original) that are most similar to the original query (SUMMAC,98): 71.9% F-score for relevance judgment  CGI/CMU approach  maximize query-relevance while minimizing redundancy with previous information. (SUMMAC,98): 73.4% F-score for relevance judgment In the context of query-based summarization

64. 64  Assumes that important phrasal expressions are given by a combination of grammatical, syntactic, and contextual parameters (Boguraev and Kennedy, 97): CNTX: 50 iff the expression is in the current discourse segment SUBJ: 80 iff the expression is a subject EXST: 70 iff the expression is an existential construction ACC: 50 iff the expression is a direct object HEAD: 80 iff the expression is not contained in another phrase ARG: 50 iff the expression is not contained in an adjunct

65. 65 But Mr. Kenny’s move speeded up work on a machine which uses micro-computers to control the rate at which an anaesthetic is pumped into the blood of patients undergoing surgery. Such machines are nothing new. But Mr. Kenny’s device uses two personal-computers to achieve much closer monitoring of the pump feeding the anaesthetic into the patient. Extensive testing of the equipment has sufficiently impressed the authorities which regulate medical equipment in Britain, and, so far, four other countries, to make this the first such machine to be licensed for commercial sale to hospitals. Based on (Morris and Hirst, 91)

66. 66  Assumes that important sentences are those that are ‘traversed’ by strong chains (Barzilay and Elhadad, 97).  Strength(C) = length(C) - #DistinctOccurrences(C)  For each chain, choose the first sentence that is traversed by the chain and that uses a representative set of concepts from that chain.

67. 67  Build co-reference chains (noun/event identity, part-whole relations) between  query and document - In the context of query-based summarization  title and document  sentences within document  Important sentences are those traversed by a large number of chains:  a preference is imposed on chains (query > title > doc)  Evaluation: 67% F-score for relevance (SUMMAC, 98). (Baldwin and Morton, 98)

68. 68  Map texts into graphs:  The nodes of the graph are the words of the text.  Arcs represent adjacency, grammatical, co- reference, and lexical similarity-based relations.  Associate importance scores to words (and sentences) by applying the tf.idf metric.  Assume that important words/sentences are those with the highest scores. (Mani and Bloedorn, 97)

69. 69  When a query is given, by applying a spreading- activation algorithms, weights can be adjusted; as a results, one can obtain query-sensitive summaries.  Evaluation (Mani and Bloedorn, 97):  IR categorization task: close to full-document categorization results. In the context of query-based summarization

70. 70  Claim: The multi-sentence coherence structure of a text can be constructed, and the ‘centrality’ of the textual units in this structure reflects their importance.  Tree-like representation of texts in the style of Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson,88).  Use the discourse representation in order to determine the most important textual units. Attempts:  (Ono et al., 94) for Japanese.  (Marcu, 97) for English.

71. 71 [With its distant orbit {– 50 percent farther from the sun than Earth –} and slim atmospheric blanket, 1 ] [Mars experiences frigid weather conditions. 2 ] [Surface temperatures typically average about –60 degrees Celsius (–76 degrees Fahrenheit) at the equator and can dip to –123 degrees C near the poles. 3 ] [Only the midday sun at tropical latitudes is warm enough to thaw ice on occasion, 4 ] [but any liquid water formed that way would evaporate almost instantly 5 ] [because of the low atmospheric pressure. 6 ] [Although the atmosphere holds a small amount of water, and water-ice clouds sometimes develop, 7 ] [most Martian weather involves blowing dust or carbon dioxide. 8 ] [Each winter, for example, a blizzard of frozen carbon dioxide rages over one pole, and a few meters of this dry-ice snow accumulate as previously frozen carbon dioxide evaporates from the opposite polar cap. 9 ] [Yet even on the summer pole, {where the sun remains in the sky all day long,} temperatures never warm enough to melt frozen water. 10 ]

72. 72  Use discourse markers to hypothesize rhetorical relations  rhet_rel(CONTRAST, 4, 5)  rhet_rel(CONTRAT, 4, 6)  rhet_rel(EXAMPLE, 9, [7,8])  rhet_rel(EXAMPLE, 10, [7,8])  Use semantic similarity to hypothesize rhetorical relations  if similar(u 1,u 2 ) then rhet_rel(ELABORATION, u 2, u 1 )  rhet_rel(BACKGROUND, u 1,u 2 ) else rhet_rel(JOIN, u 1, u 2 )  rhet_rel(JOIN, 3, [1,2])  rhet_rel(ELABORATION, [4,6], [1,2])  Use the hypotheses in order to derive a valid discourse representation of the original text.

73. 73 5 Evidence Cause 56 4 4 5 Contrast 3 3 Elaboration 12 2 Background Justification 2 Elaboration 78 8 Concession 9 10 Antithesis 8 Example 2 Elaboration Summarization = selection of the most important units 2 > 8 > 3, 10 > 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 > 6

74.  Extracts of roughly 20% of original text  Feature set:  sentence length ▪ |S| > 5  fixed phrases ▪ 26 manually chosen  paragraph ▪ sentence position in paragraph  thematic words ▪ binary: whether sentence is included in the set of highest scoring sentences  uppercase words ▪ not common acronyms  Corpus: ▪ 188 document + summary pairs from scientific journals

75.  Uses Bayesian classifier: Assuming statistical independence:

76.  Centroids consist of words which are central not only to one article in a cluster, but to all the articles.  Hypothesize that sentences that contain the words from the centroid are more indicative of the topic of the cluster.  A centroid is a pseudo-document which consists of words which have Count*IDF scores above a predefined threshold in the documents that constitute the cluster.  Count: average number of occurrences of a word across the entire cluster  IDF: computed from a large corpus.

77. 77

78. 78  (Hovy and Lin, 98)  Claim: Can approximate script identification at lexical level, using automatically acquired ‘word families’.  Idea: Create topic signatures: each concept is defined by frequency distribution of its related words (concepts): TS = {topic, signature } = {topic, (t1,w1) (t2,w2)...} restaurant -visit  waiter + menu + food + eat... (inverse of query expansion in IR.)

79.  likelihood ratio (Dunning 1993)  Hypothesis testing method: 79

80. 80  Idea: content selection using templates  Predefine a template, whose slots specify what is of interest.  Use a canonical IE system to extract from a (set of) document(s) the relevant information; fill the template.  Generate the content of the template as the summary.  Previous IE work:  FRUMP (DeJong, 78): ‘sketchy scripts’ of terrorism, natural disasters, political visits...  (Mauldin, 91): templates for conceptual IR.  (Rau and Jacobs, 91): templates for business.  (McKeown and Radev, 95): templates for news.

81. 81  Example template: MESSAGE:IDTSL-COL-0001 SECSOURCE:SOURCEReuters SECSOURCE:DATE26 Feb 93 Early afternoon INCIDENT:DATE26 Feb 93 INCIDENT:LOCATIONWorld Trade Center INCIDENT:TYPEBombing HUM TGT:NUMBERAT LEAST 5

82. 82  Problem: which extraction methods to believe?  Answer: assume they are independent, and combine their evidence: merge individual sentence scores.  Studies:  (Kupiec et al., 95; Aone et al., 97, Teufel and Moens, 97): Bayes’ Rule.  (Mani and Bloedorn,98): SCDF, C4.5, inductive learning.  (Lin and Hovy, 98b): C4.5.  (Marcu, 98): rhetorical parsing tuning.

83. 83

84. 84 Three stages: (Hovy and Lin, 98) 1. Topic Identification Modules: Positional Importance, Cue Phrases (under construction), Word Counts, Discourse Structure (under construction),... 2. Topic Interpretation Modules: Concept Counting /Wavefront, Concept Signatures (being extended) 3. Summary Generation Modules (not yet built) : Keywords, Template Gen, Sent. Planner & Realizer SUMMARY = TOPIC ID + INTERPRETATION + GENERATION

85. 85

86. 86 Former hostage John-Paul Kauffmann on Monday urged

87. 87 OPP tf.idf signature 138 AP890417-0167 Former Hostage Accuses Britain of Weakness Former hostage John-Paul Kauffmann on Monday urged Britain to follow the example set by France and West Germany and negotiate the release of its citizens held captive in Lebanon. Kauffmann said Britain `` has abandoned '' John McCarthy, 32, a television reporter abducted on his way to Beirut... Keywords: western moslem iranian middle kill march east syrian free anderson group palestinian

88. 88  Write a one-sentence summary for each of the following texts.

89. 89 Flu stopper A new compound is set for human testing (Times) Running nose. Raging fever. Aching joints. Splitting headache. Are there any poor souls suffering from the flu this winter who haven’t longed for a pill to make it all go away? Relief may be in sight. Researchers at Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical company in Foster City, California, reported last week in the Journal of the American Chemical Society that they have discovered a compound that can stop the influenza virus from spreading in animals. Tests on humans are set for later this year. The new compound takes a novel approach to the familiar flu virus. It targets an enzyme, called neuraminidase, that the virus needs in order to scatter copies of itself throughout the body. This enzyme acts like a pair of molecular scissors that slices through the protective mucous linings of the nose and throat. After the virus infects the cells of the respiratory system and begins replicating, neuraminidase cuts the newly formed copies free to invade other cells. By blocking this enzyme, the new compound, dubbed GS 4104, prevents the infection from spreading.

90. 90 Plant matters How do you regulate an herb? (Scientific American) If Harlan Page Hubbard were alive, he might be the president of a dietary supplements company. In the late 19th century Hubbard sold Lydia E. Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound for kidney and sexual problems. The renowned huckster is remembered each year by national consumer and health organizations who confer a “Hubbard” – a statuette clutching a fresh lemon – for the “most misleading, unfair and irresponsible advertising of the past 12 months.” Appropriately enough, one of this year’s winners was a product that Hubbard might have peddled alongside his Lydia Pinkham elixir. Ginkay, an extract of the herb gingko, received its lemon for advertising and labelling claims that someone ingesting the product will have a better memory. Whereas some studies have shown that gingko improves mental functioning in people with dementia, none has proved that it serves as brain tonic for healthy.

91. 91 1. Motivation. 2. Genres and types of summaries. 3. Approaches and paradigms. 4. Summarization methods (& exercise). Topic Extraction. Interpretation. Generation. 5. Evaluating summaries. 6. The future.

92. 92  From extract to abstract: topic interpretation or concept fusion.  Experiment (Marcu, 98):  Got 10 newspaper texts, with human abstracts.  Asked 14 judges to extract corresponding clauses from texts, to cover the same content.  Compared word lengths of extracts to abstracts: extract_length  2.76  abstract_length !! xx xxx xxxx x xx xxxx xx xxx x xxx xx xxx x xx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xx xx xxxx xxx xxx xx xx xxxx x xxx xx x xx xx xxxxx x x xx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx x x xxxxxxx xx x xxxxxx xxxx xx xx xxxxx xxx xx x xx xx xxxx xxx xxxx xx xxx xx xxx xxxx xx xxx x xxxx x xx xxxx xx xx xxxxx x x xx xxxxxxx xx x xxxxxx xxxx xx xx xxxxx xxx xx xxx xx xxxx x xxxxx xx xxxxx x

93. 93  Concept generalization: Sue ate apples, pears, and bananas  Sue ate fruit  Meronymy replacement: Both wheels, the pedals, saddle, chain…  the bike  Script identification: (Schank and Abelson, 77) He sat down, read the menu, ordered, ate, paid, and left  He ate at the restaurant  Metonymy: A spokesperson for the US Government announced that…  Washington announced that...

94. 94  Interpretation occurs at the conceptual level... …words alone are polysemous (bat  animal and sports instrument) and combine for meaning (alleged murderer  murderer).  For interpretation, you need world knowledge... …the fusion inferences are not in the text!  Little work so far: (Lin, 95; McKeown and Radev, 95; Reimer and Hahn, 97; Hovy and Lin, 98).

95. 95  Claim: Using IE systems, can aggregate templates by detecting interrelationships. 1. Detect relationships (contradictions, changes of perspective, additions, refinements, agreements, trends, etc.). 2. Modify, delete, aggregate templates using rules (McKeown and Radev, 95): Given two templates, if (the location of the incident is the same and the time of the first report is before the time of the second report and the report sources are different and at least one slot differs in value) then combine the templates using a contradiction operator.

96. 96  Claim: Can perform concept generalization, using WordNet (Lin, 95).  Find most appropriate summarizing concept: Cash register Mainframe Dell MacIBM Computer Calculator 18 6 5 20 5 0 2 PC 1. Count word occurrences in text; score WN concs 2. Propagate scores upward 3. R  Max{scores} /  scores 4. Move downward until no obvious child: R<R t 5. Output that concept

97. 97  200 BusinessWeek articles about computers:  typical length 750 words (1 page).  human abstracts, typical length 150 words (1 par).  several parameters; many variations tried.  R t = 0.67; StartDepth = 6; Length = 20%:  Conclusion: need more elaborate taxonomy.

98. 98  ‘Condensation’ operators (Reimer and Hahn, 97). 1. Parse text, incrementally build a terminological rep. 2. Apply condensation operators to determine the salient concepts, relationships, and properties for each paragraph (employ frequency counting and other heuristics on concepts and relations, not on words). 3. Build a hierarchy of topic descriptions out of salient constructs. Conclusion: No evaluation.

99. 99  Claim: Can approximate script identification at lexical level, using automatically acquired ‘word families’ (Hovy and Lin, 98).  Idea: Create topic signatures: each concept is defined by frequency distribution of its related words (concepts): signature = {head (c1,f1) (c2,f2)...} restaurant  waiter + menu + food + eat...  (inverse of query expansion in IR.)

100. 100

101. 101  Experiment: created 30 signatures from 30,000 Wall Street Journal texts, 30 categories:  Used tf.idf to determine uniqueness in category.  Collected most frequent 300 words per term.  Evaluation: classified 2204 new texts:  Created document signature and matched against all topic signatures; selected best match.  Results: Precision  69.31%; Recall  75.66%  90%+ for top 1/3 of categories; rest lower, because less clearly delineated (overlapping signatures).

102. 102 1. Motivation. 2. Genres and types of summaries. 3. Approaches and paradigms. 4. Summarization methods (& exercise). Topic Extraction. Interpretation. Generation. 5. Evaluating summaries. 6. The future.

103. 103  Level 1: no separate generation  Produce extracts, verbatim from input text.  Level 2: simple sentences  Assemble portions of extracted clauses together.  Level 3: full NLG 1. Sentence Planner: plan sentence content, sentence length, theme, order of constituents, words chosen... (Hovy and Wanner, 96) 2. Surface Realizer: linearize input grammatically (Elhadad, 92; Knight and Hatzivassiloglou, 95).

104. 104  Challenge: Pack content densely!  Example (McKeown and Radev, 95):  Traverse templates and assign values to ‘realization switches’ that control local choices such as tense and voice.  Map modified templates into a representation of Functional Descriptions (input representation to Columbia’s NL generation system FUF).  FUF maps Functional Descriptions into English.

105. 105 NICOSIA, Cyprus (AP) – Two bombs exploded near government ministries in Baghdad, but there was no immediate word of any casualties, Iraqi dissidents reported Friday. There was no independent confirmation of the claims by the Iraqi National Congress. Iraq’s state-controlled media have not mentioned any bombings. Multiple sources and disagreement Explicit mentioning of “no information”.

106. 106 1. Motivation. 2. Genres and types of summaries. 3. Approaches and paradigms. 4. Summarization methods (& exercise). 5. Evaluating summaries. 6. The future.

107. 107  When you already have a summary…...then you can compare a new one to it: 1. choose a granularity (clause; sentence; paragraph), 2. create a similarity measure for that granularity (word overlap; multi-word overlap, perfect match), 3. measure the similarity of each unit in the new to the most similar unit(s) in the gold standard, 4. measure Recall and Precision. e.g., (Kupiec et al., 95). ……………..…. but when you don’t?

108. 108  Two Measures:  Measuring length:  Number of letters? words?  Measuring information:  Shannon Game: quantify information content.  Question Game: test reader’s understanding.  Classification Game: compare classifiability. Compression Ratio: CR = (length S) / (length T) Retention Ratio: RR = (info in S) / (info in T)

109. 109  Case 1: just adding info; no special leverage from summary.  Case 2: ‘fuser’ concept(s) at knee add a lot of information.  Case 3: ‘fuser’ concepts become progressively weaker. RR CR RR CR RR CR

110. 110  Can you recreate what’s in the original?  the Shannon Game [Shannon 1947–50].  but often only some of it is really important.  Measure info retention (number of keystrokes):  3 groups of subjects, each must recreate text: ▪ group 1 sees original text before starting. ▪ group 2 sees summary of original text before starting. ▪ group 3 sees nothing before starting.  Results (# of keystrokes; two different paragraphs):

111. 111  Can you focus on the important stuff? The Q&A Game—can be tailored to your interests!  Measure core info. capture by Q&A game:  Some people (questioners) see text, must create questions about most important content.  Other people (answerers) see: 1. nothing—but must try to answer questions (baseline), 2. then: summary, must answer same questions, 3. then: full text, must answer same questions again.  Information retention: % answers correct.

112. 112  When you generate a summary…..…: 1. the gold standard summaries (human), 2. choose a granularity (clause; sentence; paragraph), 3. create a similarity measure for that granularity (word overlap; multi-word overlap, perfect match), 4. measure the similarity of each unit in the new to the most similar unit(s) in the gold standard, 5. measure Recall and Precision. e.g., (Kupiec et al., 95).

113.  Two persons A and B extract sentences from documents as summaries  Their agreement?  Kappa value ▪ ≥0.75 Excellent, 0.40 to 0.75 Fair to good, < 0.40 as Poor ▪ 0 to 0.20 Slight, >0.20 to 0.40 Fair, >0.40 to 0.60 Moderate, >0.60 to 0.80 Substantial, >0.80 Almost perfect 113

114.  P(A): the observed agreement among raters  P(E): the expectation probability of chance agreement

115. B YesNo A Yes205 No1015 115 P(A) = (20 + 15) / 50 = 0.70 P(E) = 0.5*0.6+ 0.5* 0.4 = 0.3 + 0.2 = 0.5

116.  Manual  Linguistic Quality(readability) ▪ Grammaticality ▪ Non-redundancy ▪ Referential clarity ▪ Focus ▪ Structure  Five-point scale (1 very poor, 5 very good)  Pyramid: SCU  Automatic  Rouge ▪ ROUGE 2 ▪ ROUGE SU4 4 3 2 1 –Responsiveness(content) –BE(basic element)

117.  The pyramid method is designed to address the observation: summaries from different humans always have partly overlapping content.  The pyramid method includes a manual annotation method to represent Summary Content Units (SCUs) and to quantify the proportion of model summaries that express this content.  All SCUs have a weight representing the number of models they occur in, thus from 1 to max n, where max n is the total number of models  There are very few SCUs expressed in all models (i.e., weight=maxn), and increasingly many SCUs at each lower weight, with the most SCUs at weight=1. 1 2 3 4

118.  SCU example 118

119.  The approach involves two phases of manual annotation:  pyramid construction  annotation against the pyramid to determine which SCUs in the pyramid have been expressed in the peer summary.  The total weight is

121.  Rouge(Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation) Recall-oriented, within-sentence word overlap with model(s)  Models - no theoretical limit to number  compared system output to 4 models  compared manual summaries to 3 models  Using n-gram  Correlate reasonably with human coverage judgements  Not address summary discourse characteristics, and suffer from lack of text cohesion or coherence  ROUGE v1.2.1 measures  ROUGE-1,2,3,4: N-gram matching where N = 1,2,3,4  ROUGE-LCS: Longest common substring

122. Rouge – Ngram co-occurrence metrics measuring content overlap Counts of n-gram overlaps between candidate and model summaries Total n-grams in summary model

123.  Where Nn represents the set of all n-grams and i is one member from Nn. Xn(i) is the number of times the n-gram i occurred in the summary and Mn(i,j) is the number of times the n-gram i ocurred in the j-th model reference(human) summary. There are totally h human summaries.

124.  peer: A B C D E F G A B  H1: A B G A D E C D (7)  H2: A C E F G A D (6)  How to compute the ROUGE-2 score? 124

125. 125 1. Motivation. 2. Genres and types of summaries. 3. Approaches and paradigms. 4. Summarization methods. 5. Evaluating summaries. 6. The future.

126.  In the last decade there has been a surge of interest in automatic summarizing. … There has been some progress, but there is much to do. Karen Sparck Jones Karen Sparck Jones, automatic summarising: the state of the art, Information Processing & Management, 43(6): 1449--1481, 2007.

127. 127  Data preparation:  Collect large sets of texts with abstracts, all genres.  Build large corpora of tuples.  Investigate relationships between extracts and abstracts (using tuples).  Topic Identification:  Develop new identification methods (discourse, etc.).  Develop heuristics for method combination (train heuristics on tuples).

128. 128  Concept Interpretation (Fusion):  Investigate types of fusion (semantic, evaluative…).  Create large collections of fusion knowledge/rules.  Study incorporation of User’s knowledge in interpretation.  Generation:  Develop sentence generation rules (using pairs).  Evaluation:  Develop better automatic evaluation metrics.

129. 129  Procedure (SUMMAC, 98): 1. Testers create questions for each category. 2. Systems create summaries, not knowing questions. 3. Humans answer questions from originals and from summaries. 4. Testers measure answer Recall: how many questions can be answered correctly from the summary? (many other measures as well) Results: Large variation by topic, even within systems...

130. 130  Can you perform some task faster?  example: the Classification Game.  measures: time and effectiveness.  TIPSTER/SUMMAC evaluation:  February, 1998 (SUMMAC, 98).  Two tests: 1. Categorization 2. Ad Hoc (query-sensitive)  2 summaries per system: fixed-length (10%), best.  16 systems (universities, companies; 3 intern’l).