Skip to main content

Extraction Based Text Summarization Methods on User’s Review Data: A Comparative Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 628))

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative analysis of various graph based extraction methods for automatic text summarizations using ROUGE on review dataset. We consider five techniques that include TextRank, LexRank, LSA, Luhn, and Edmundson. These methods concentrate on predicting the semantics of an entity. The experimental results on summarizing the users’ opinions show that the LexRank method gives the best performance among all. Generated summaries are understandable and convey informative opinions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Opinosis.

  2. 2.

    https://github.com/miso-belica/sumy.

References

  1. Edmundson, H.P.: New methods in automatic extracting. J. ACM (JACM) 16(2), 264–285 (1969)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Erkan, G., Radev, D.R.: Lexrank: graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 22, 457–479 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferreira, R., de Souza Cabral, L., Lins, R.D., e Silva, G.P., Freitas, F., Cavalcanti, G.D., Lima, R., Simske, S.J., Favaro, L.: Assessing sentence scoring techniques for extractive text summarization. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(14), 5755–5764 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ganesan, K., Zhai, C., Han, J.: Opinosis: a graph-based approach to abstractive summarization of highly redundant opinions. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 340–348. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gupta, V., Lehal, G.S.: A survey of text summarization extractive techniques. J. Emerg. Technol. Web Intell. 2(3), 258–268 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jin, F., Huang, M., Zhu, X.: A comparative study on ranking and selection strategies for multi-document summarization. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Posters, pp. 525–533. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lin, C.Y.: Looking for a few good metrics: automatic summarization evaluation-how many samples are enough. In: Proceedings of the NTCIR Workshop, vol. 4 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lin, C.Y.: Rouge: a package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In: Text Summarization Branches Out: Proceedings of the ACL-04 Workshop, vol. 8 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lin, C.Y., Hovy, E.: Automatic evaluation of summaries using n-gram co-occurrence statistics. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, vol. 1, pp. 71–78. Association for Computational Linguistics (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Luhn, H.P.: The automatic creation of literature abstracts. IBM J. Res. Dev. 2(2), 159–165 (1958)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Mihalcea, R., Tarau, P.: Textrank: Bringing order into texts. Association for Computational Linguistics (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Radev, D., Allison, T., Blair-Goldensohn, S., Blitzer, J., Celebi, A., Dimitrov, S., Drabek, E., Hakim, A., Lam, W., Liu, D., et al.: MEAD-a platform for multidocument multilingual text summarization (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Steinberger, J., Jezek, K.: Using latent semantic analysis in text summarization and summary evaluation. In: Proceedings of the ISIM’04, pp. 93–100 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pradeepika Verma .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Verma, P., Om, H. (2016). Extraction Based Text Summarization Methods on User’s Review Data: A Comparative Study. In: Unal, A., Nayak, M., Mishra, D.K., Singh, D., Joshi, A. (eds) Smart Trends in Information Technology and Computer Communications. SmartCom 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 628. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3433-6_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3433-6_42

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3432-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3433-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics