Pith. sign in

REVIEW

At Which Level Should We Extract? An Empirical Analysis on Extractive Document Summarization

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2004.02664 v2 pith:FRCKRZ2B submitted 2020-04-06 cs.CL

At Which Level Should We Extract? An Empirical Analysis on Extractive Document Summarization

classification cs.CL
keywords extractingextractivesub-sententialunitsextractionlevelsentencesummarization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Extractive methods have been proven effective in automatic document summarization. Previous works perform this task by identifying informative contents at sentence level. However, it is unclear whether performing extraction at sentence level is the best solution. In this work, we show that unnecessity and redundancy issues exist when extracting full sentences, and extracting sub-sentential units is a promising alternative. Specifically, we propose extracting sub-sentential units based on the constituency parsing tree. A neural extractive model which leverages the sub-sentential information and extracts them is presented. Extensive experiments and analyses show that extracting sub-sentential units performs competitively comparing to full sentence extraction under the evaluation of both automatic and human evaluations. Hopefully, our work could provide some inspiration of the basic extraction units in extractive summarization for future research.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.