A Survey of Text Summarization Techniques

Chapter

Abstract

Numerous approaches for identifying important content for automatic text summarization have been developed to date. Topic representation approaches first derive an intermediate representation of the text that captures the topics discussed in the input. Based on these representations of topics, sentences in the input document are scored for importance. In contrast, in indicator representation approaches, the text is represented by a diverse set of possible indicators of importance which do not aim at discovering topicality. These indicators are combined, very often using machine learning techniques, to score the importance of each sentence. Finally, a summary is produced by selecting sentences in a greedy approach, choosing the sentences that will go in the summary one by one, or globally optimizing the selection, choosing the best set of sentences to form a summary. In this chapter we give a broad overview of existing approaches based on these distinctions, with particular attention on how representation, sentence scoring or summary selection strategies alter the overall performance of the summarizer. We also point out some of the peculiarities of the task of summarization which have posed challenges to machine learning approaches for the problem, and some of the suggested solutions.

Keywords

Extractive text summarization topic representation machine learning for summarization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Aker, T. Cohn, and R. Gaizauskas. Multi-document summarization using a* search and discriminative training. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP’10, pages 482–491, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Amitay and C. Paris. Automatically summarizing web sites - is there a way around it? In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 173–179, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Barzilay and M. Elhadad. Text summarizations with lexical chains. In Inderjeet Mani and Mark Maybury, editors, Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, pages 111 121. MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Barzilay and N. Elhadad. Sentence alignment for monolingual comparable corpora. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 25–32, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Barzilay and L. Lee. Catching the drift: Probabilistic content models, with applications to generation and summarization. In Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 113–120, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Biadsy, J. Hirschberg, and E. Filatova. An unsupervised approach to biography production using wikipedia. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 807–815, 2008.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Blair-Goldensohn, K. McKeown, and A. Schlaikjer. Defscriber: a hybrid system for definitional qa. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 462–462, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Blei, T. Griffiths, M. Jordan, and J. Tenenbaum. Hierarchical topic models and the nested chinese restaurant process. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, page 2003, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Carbonell and J. Goldstein. The use of mmr, diversity-based rerunning for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 335–336, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Carenini, R. Ng, and X. Zhou. Summarizing email conversations with clue words. In Proceedings of the international conference on World Wide Web, pages 91–100, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Celikyilmaz and D. Hakkani-Tur. A hybrid hierarchical model for multi document summarization. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 815–824, 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Y. Chali, S. Hasan, and S. Joty. Do automatic annotation techniques have any impact on supervised complex question answering? In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the Annual Meeting of the ACL and the International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 329–332, 2009. [13] Y. Chali and S. Joty. Improving the performance of the random walk model for answering complex questions. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Short Papers, pages 9–12, 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Conroy and D. O’Leary. Text summarization via hidden markov models. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 406–407, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Conroy, J. Schlesinger, and D. O’Leary. Topic-focused multidocument summarization using an approximate oracle score. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 152–159, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Copeck and S. Szpakowicz. Leveraging pyramids. In Proceedings of the Document Understanding Conference, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Daum´e III and D. Marcu. A phrase-based HMM approach to document/abstract alignment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 119– 126, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Daum´e III and D. Marcu. Bayesian query-focused summarization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 305–312, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Deerwester, S. Dumais, G. Furnas, T. Landauer, and R. Harshman. Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, pages 391–407, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.-Y. Delort, B. Bouchon-Meunier, and M. Rifqi. Enhanced web document summarization using hyperlinks. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, pages 208–215, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Donaway, K. Drummey, and L. Mather. A comparison of rankings produced by summarization evaluation measures. In Proceedings of the 2000 NAACL-ANLPWorkshop on Automatic summarization - Volume 4, pages 69–78, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Dunning. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1):61–74, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Edmundson. New methods in automatic extracting. Journal of the ACM, 16(2):264–285, 1969.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    N. Elhadad, M.-Y. Kan, J. Klavans, and K. McKeown. Customization in a unified framework for summarizing medical literature. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 33:179–198, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Erkan and D. Radev. Lexrank: Graph-based centrality as salience in text summarization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. Filatova and V. Hatzivassiloglou. A formal model for information selection in multi-sentence text extraction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistic, pages 397–403, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Fuentes, E. Alfonseca, and H. Rodr´ıguez. Support vector machines for query-focused summarization trained and evaluated on pyramid data. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume: Proceedings of the Demo and Poster Sessions, pages 57–60, 2007.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Fung and G. Ngai. One story, one flow: Hidden markov story models for multilingual multidocument summarization. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing, 3(2):1–16, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Furui, M. Hirohata, Y. Shinnaka, and K. Iwano. Sentence extraction-based automatic speech summarization and evaluation techniques. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Large-scale Knowledge Resources, pages 33–38, 2005.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Galley. A skip-chain conditional random field for ranking meeting utterances by importance. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 364– 372, 2006.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Galley and K. McKeown. Improving word sense disambiguation in lexical chaining. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 1486–1488, 2003.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Gillick, K. Riedhammer, B. Favre, and D. Hakkani-Tur. A global optimization framework for meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 4769–4772, 2009.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Y. Gong and X. Liu. Generic text summarization using relevance measure and latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 19–25, 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Gupta, A. Nenkova, and D. Jurafsky. Measuring importance and query relevance in topic-focused multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Demo and Poster Sessions, pages 193–196, 2007.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    B. Hachey, G. Murray, and D. Reitter. Dimensionality reduction aids term co-occurrence based multi-document summarization. In SumQA ’06: Proceedings of the Workshop on Task-Focused Summarization and Question Answering, pages 1–7, 2006.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    A. Haghighi and L. Vanderwende. Exploring content models for multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    pages 362–370, 2009.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Hakkani-Tur and G. Tur. Statistical sentence extraction for information distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, volume 4, pages IV–1 –IV–4, 2007.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Harabagiu and F. Lacatusu. Topic themes for multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR’05, pages 202–209, 2005.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    V. Hatzivassiloglou, J. Klavans, M. Holcombe, R. Barzilay, M. Kan, and K. McKeown. Simfinder: A flexible clustering tool for summarization. In Proceedings of the NAACL Workshop on Automatic Summarization, pages 41–49, 2001.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    E. Hovy and C.-Y. Lin. Automated text summarization in summarist. In Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, pages 82– 94, 1999.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. Hu, A. Sun, and E.-P. Lim. Comments-oriented blog summarization by sentence extraction. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 901–904, 2007.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    H. Jing. Using hidden markov modeling to decompose humanwritten summaries. Computational linguistics, 28(4):527–543, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. Kupiec, J. Pedersen, and F. Chen. A trainable document summarizer. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 68–73, 1995.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    J. Leskovec, N. Milic-frayling, and M. Grobelnik. Impact of linguistic analysis on the semantic graph coverage and learning of document extracts. In Proceedings of the national conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 1069–1074, 2005.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    C.-Y. Lin, G. Cao, J. Gao, and J.-Y. Nie. An information-theoretic approach to automatic evaluation of summaries. In Proceedings of the main conference on Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL’06), pages 463–470, 2006.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    C.-Y. Lin and E. Hovy. The automated acquisition of topic signatures for text summarization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistic, pages 495–501, 2000.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    H. Lin and J. Bilmes. Multi-document summarization via budgeted maximization of submodular functions. In North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics/Human Language Technology Conference (NAACL/HLT-2010), 2010.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    H. Lin, J. Bilmes, and S. Xie. Graph-based submodular selection for extractive summarization. In Proc. IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding (ASRU), 2009.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    S.-H. Lin, Y.-M. Chang, J.-W. Liu, and B. Chen. Leveraging evaluation metric-related training criteria for speech summarization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2010, pages 5314–5317, 2010.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    S.-H. Lin and B. Chen. A risk minimization framework for extractive speech summarization. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 79–87, 2010.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    A. Louis, A. Joshi, and A. Nenkova. Discourse indicators for content selection in summarization. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 147–156, 2010.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    A. Louis and A. Nenkova. Automatically evaluating content selection in summarization without human models. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 306–314, 2009.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    H. P. Luhn. The automatic creation of literature abstracts. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 2(2):159–165, 1958.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    M. Mana-L´opez, M. De Buenaga, and J. G´omez-Hidalgo. Multidocument summarization: An added value to clustering in interactive retrieval. ACM Transactions on Informations Systems, 22(2):215–241, 2004.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    I. Mani and E. Bloedorn. Summarizing similarities and differences among related documents. Information Retrieval, 1(1-2):35–67, April 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    D. Marcu. The automatic construction of large-scale corpora for summarization research. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 137–144, 1999.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    R. McDonald. A study of global inference algorithms in multidocument summarization. In Proceedings of the European Conference on IR Research, pages 557–564, 2007.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    K. McKeown, L. Shrestha, and O. Rambow. Using question-answer pairs in extractive summarization of email conversations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, pages 542–550, 2007.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    K. McKeown, J. Klavans, V. Hatzivassiloglou, R. Barzilay, and E. Eskin. Towards multidocument summarization by reformulation: progress and prospects. In Proceedings of the national conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 453–460, 1999.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Q. Mei and C. Zhai. Generating impact-based summaries for scientific literature. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 816–824, 2008.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    R. Mihalcea and P. Tarau. Textrank: Bringing order into texts. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404–411, 2004.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    R. Mihalcea and P. Tarau. An algorithm for language independent single and multiple document summarization. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 19–24, 2005.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    G.A. Miller, R. Beckwith, C. Fellbaum, D. Gross, and K. J. Miller. Introduction to wordnet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography (special issue), 3(4):235–312, 1990.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    H. Murakoshi, A. Shimazu, and K. Ochimizu. Construction of deliberation structure in email conversation. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 570–577, 2004.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    G. Murray, S. Renals, and J. Carletta. Extractive summarization of meeting recordings. In Proc. 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, pages 593–596, 2005.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    A. Nenkova and A. Bagga. Facilitating email thread access by extractive summary generation. In Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing Conference, 2003.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    A. Nenkova and K. McKeown. Automatic Summarization. In Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 5(2–3), pages 103–233, 2011.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    A. Nenkova, L. Vanderwende, and K. McKeown. A compositional context sensitive multi-document summarizer: exploring the factors that influence summarization. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 573–580, 2006.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    P. Newman and J. Blitzer. Summarizing archived discussions: a beginning. In Proceedings of the international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 273–276, 2003.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    M. Osborne. Using maximum entropy for sentence extraction. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Automatic Summarization, pages 1–8, 2002.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    J. Otterbacher, G. Erkan, and D. Radev. Biased lexrank: Passage retrieval using random walks with question-based priors. Information Processing and Management, 45:42–54, January 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    M. Ozsoy, I. Cicekli, and F. Alpaslan. Text summarization of turkish texts using latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2010), pages 869–876, August 2010.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    D. Radev, H. Jing, M. Sty, and D. Tam. Centroid-based summarization of multiple documents. Information Processing and Management, 40:919–938, 2004.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    D. Radev, S. Teufel, H. Saggion, W. Lam, J. Blitzer, H. Qi, A. C, elebi, D. Liu, and E. Drabek. Evaluation challenges in largescale document summarization. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’03), pages 375–382, 2003.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    O. Rambow, L. Shrestha, J. Chen, and C. Lauridsen. Summarizing email threads. In Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2004.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    G. Rath, A. Resnick, and R. Savage. The formation of abstracts by the selection of sentences: Part 1: sentence selection by man and machines. American Documentation, 2(12):139–208, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    K. Riedhammer, D. Gillick, B. Favre, and D. Hakkani-Tur. Packing the meeting summarization knapsack. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, pages 2434–2437, 2008.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    G. Salton, A. Singhal, M. Mitra, and C. Buckley. Automatic text structuring and summarization. Information Processing and Management, 33(2):193–208, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    G. Salton and C. Buckley. Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 24:513–523, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    C. Sauper and R. Barzilay. Automatically generating wikipedia articles: A structure-aware approach. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 208–216, 2009.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    B. Schiffman, I. Mani, and K. Concepcion. Producing biographical summaries: Combining linguistic knowledge with corpus statistics. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 458–465, 2001.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    B. Schiffman, A. Nenkova, and K. McKeown. Experiments in multidocument summarization. In Proceedings of the international conference on Human Language Technology Research, pages 52– 58, 2002.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    D. Shen, J.-T. Sun, H. Li, Q. Yang, and Z. Chen. Document summarization using conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on Artifical intelligence, pages 2862–2867, 2007.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    L. Shrestha and K. McKeown. Detection of question-answer pairs in email conversations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistic, 2004.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    A. Siddharthan, A. Nenkova, and K. McKeown. Syntactic simplification for improving content selection in multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistic, pages 896–902, 2004.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    H. Silber and K. McCoy. Efficiently computed lexical chains as an intermediate representation for automatic text summarization. Computational Linguistics, 28(4):487–496, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    K. Sparck Jones. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 28:11–21, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    J. Steinberger, M. Poesio, M. A. Kabadjov, and K. Jeek. Two uses of anaphora resolution in summarization. Information Processing and Management, 43(6):1663–1680, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    W. Yih, J. Goodman, L. Vanderwende, and H. Suzuki. Multidocument summarization by maximizing informative contentwords. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 1776–1782, 2007.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    S. Teufel and M. Moens. Summarizing scientific articles: experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Computational Linguisics., 28(4):409–445, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    D. Radev, T. Allison, S. Blair-goldensohn, J. Blitzer, A. Celebi, S. Dimitrov, E. Drabek, A. Hakim, W. Lam, D. Liu, J. Otterba cher, H. Qi, H. Saggion, S. Teufel, A. Winkel, and Z. Zhang. Mead - a platform for multidocument multilingual text summarization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2004.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    A. Turpin, Y. Tsegay, D. Hawking, and H. Williams. Fast generation of result snippets in web search. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 127–134, 2007.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    J. Ulrich, G. Murray, and G. Carenini. A publicly available annotated corpus for supervised email summarization. In Proceedings of the AAAI EMAIL Workshop, pages 77–87, 2008.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    L. Vanderwende, H. Suzuki, C. Brockett, and A. Nenkova. Beyond sumbasic: Task-focused summarization with sentence simplification and lexical expansion. Information Processing and Managment, 43:1606–1618, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    R. Varadarajan and V. Hristidis. A system for query-specific document summarization. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2006.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    X. Wan and J. Yang. Improved affinity graph based multidocument summarization. In Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume: Short Papers, pages 181–184, 2006.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    D. Wang, S. Zhu, T. Li, and Y. Gong. Multi-document summarization using sentence-based topic models. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, pages 297–300, 2009.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    R. Weischedel, J. Xu, and A. Licuanan. A hybrid approach to answering biographical questions. In Mark Maybury, editor, New Directions In Question Answering, pages 59–70, 2004.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    K. Wong, M. Wu, and W. Li. Extractive summarization using supervised and semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pages 985–992, 2008.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    S. Xie, H. Lin, and Y. Liu. Semi-supervised extractive speech summarization via co-training algorithm. In INTERSPEECH, the 11th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, pages 2522–2525, 2010.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    S. Xie and Y. Liu. Using corpus and knowledge-based similarity measure in maximum marginal relevance for meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 4985–4988, 2008.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    S. Ye, T.-S. Chua, M.-Y. Kan, and L. Qiu. Document concept lattice for text understanding and summarization. Information Processing and Management, 43(6):1643 – 1662, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    W. Yih, J. Goodman, L. Vanderwende, and H. Suzuki. Multidocument summarization by maximizing informative contentwords. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 1776–1782, 2007.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    L. Zhou and E. Hovy. A web-trained extraction summarization system. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, pages 205–211, 2003.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    L. Zhou, M. Ticrea, and E. Hovy. Multi-document biography summarization. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 434–441, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Columbia UniversityNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations