Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Recent Trends in Linear Text Segmentation: a Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that linear text segmentation has shifted to supervised transformer-based systems, with LLM methods just beginning to compete, and that missing data and flawed metrics—especially Pk—are now the field's real bottlenecks.

desk verdict Useful survey of linear text segmentation, but its comparison tables—the only evidence for the headline empirical claims—have load-bearing citation and provenance problems. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16613 v1 pith:CMHD3Z6D submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CL

Iacopo Ghinassi , Lin Wang , Chris Newell , Matthew Purver This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords lineartextsegmentationtopictransformerlanguagemodelslargePkmetricboundarysimilaritydialoguebenchmarkdatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The survey is trying to establish where linear text segmentation stands after the transformer wave. It claims that the field has consolidated around a standard recipe: use sentence- or word-level features from pretrained transformer language models, train a supervised sequence tagger, and add auxiliary objectives to fight overfitting. It also claims that large language models are only beginning to enter the task, but that prompted zero-shot segmentation already outperforms older unsupervised methods. The deeper point is that model design is no longer the main obstacle; the bottlenecks are scarce and fragmented datasets, especially for dialogue and media, and evaluation metrics that the field itself knows are unreliable. A sympathetic reader should finish believing that progress depends less on inventing a better model than on building shared benchmarks and better metrics.

What carries the argument

The analytical machinery is a two-axis taxonomy—method family (count-based, topic-modelling, embedding-based, LLM-based, supervised single-task, or multi-task) crossed with basic unit (word, sentence or pseudo-sentence, paragraph, or speaker turn)—supported by two comparison tables that line systems up on benchmarks using the Pk metric. The taxonomy is what lets the survey read fifty years of work as a single arc toward transformer features and supervised learning. The tables carry the empirical claims: supervised systems hold the lowest (best) reported Pk values on written text, multi-task systems dominate their single-task rivals, and ChatGPT's 31.8 on SuperDialseg is the best reported unsupervised dialogue result. Pk itself is part of the argument: because its flaws are documented and it still dominates usage, the survey uses it to say the field lacks a trustworthy, widely shared evaluation standard.

What would settle it

Run the systems in Tables 2 and 3 on the same benchmarks with identical tokenization, train/dev/test splits, and metric code, and add confidence intervals; if the supervised-versus-unsupervised ordering changes materially, or if a tuned ChatGPT prompt no longer leads the unsupervised column, the survey's empirical conclusions would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the history of linear text segmentation is a shift in where semantic features come from: from count-based window comparisons, through topic-model word distributions and word embeddings, to transformer-based sentence embeddings feeding supervised classifiers, and now to LLM prompting. It finds that supervised systems largely outperform unsupervised ones on written-text benchmarks, that multi-task variants are the strongest performers, and that ChatGPT, after careful prompt optimization, beats all earlier unsupervised systems on the SuperDialseg dialogue benchmark. On evaluation, it argues that the most-used metric, Pk, has documented flaws, that newer alternatives such as Boundary Similarity are rarely adopted, and that no single dataset has become a standard benchmark. The survey concludes that dataset availability and adoption, not model architecture, are the central challenges for the field's near-term progress.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central ordering—supervised systems beat unsupervised ones, and ChatGPT beats other unsupervised methods—rests on Pk scores copied from papers that used different datasets, splits, and metric implementations, with no error bars or significance tests, so the numbers may not be directly comparable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future systems should build on transformer-based features; older count-based and topic-modelling pipelines are unlikely to be competitive except where training data are very scarce.
  • Releasing larger and more diverse dialogue and media datasets should matter more for progress than novel architectures, since supervised systems improve sharply when enough data exist.
  • The reported superiority of supervised over unsupervised systems should be read as provisional until a shared benchmark and metric protocol exist, because the comparison tables use Pk values from papers with different setups.
  • LLM zero-shot segmentation, if it keeps improving with prompt optimization, is a credible way to address domains that lack annotated training data.
  • Multi-task objectives such as topic classification and coherence discrimination are the main reported remedy for overfitting to domain-specific cue phrases, so they are likely to remain central to system design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A controlled re-evaluation on shared splits with confidence intervals could reorder the systems in the paper's own tables, since the Pk numbers are copied from heterogeneous sources; this is an editorial caution, not the survey's claim.
  • If evaluation infrastructure is the real bottleneck, then test sets that record annotator disagreement about boundary placement, rather than one ground-truth boundary, would make Pk's tolerance flaws visible and could push the field toward metrics like Boundary Similarity.
  • The ChatGPT result suggests a direct test: evaluate prompted LLM segmentation on podcast and TV transcripts, the domains the survey identifies as lacking supervised datasets; good transfer would confirm that LLMs can fill the data gap.
  • A concrete design target implied by the survey is a multi-thousand-transcript dialogue benchmark with per-boundary agreement scores and both Pk and Boundary Similarity reported; such a resource would do more for the field than another model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This survey reviews linear text segmentation, tracing approaches from count-based unsupervised methods through topic models, embeddings, transformer-based supervised classifiers, and initial LLM-based zero-shot segmentation. It surveys written-text and dialogue datasets, discusses evaluation metrics with particular attention to the shortcomings of Pk, and presents two comparison tables of reported Pk scores across systems and benchmarks. The paper concludes that transformer-based supervised learning has become the dominant framework, that the main bottlenecks are data availability/adoption and metric flaws, and that future work should pursue LLMs, multi-task learning, and better evaluation infrastructure.

Significance. If the survey's central claims are accepted, it fills a genuine gap: prior surveys are outdated and do not cover transformer-based and LLM-based methods. The organization of methods into count-based, topic-modelling, embedding-based, LLM-based, and single/multi-task supervised categories is clear and generally faithful to the cited literature, and the explicit Limitations section is a useful scoping statement. The survey's main empirical contribution is the claim, based on Tables 2 and 3, that supervised methods outperform unsupervised ones and that LLMs currently lead unsupervised methods. However, because those tables contain attribution errors and no comparison protocol, the quantitative evidence for these conclusions is presently not verifiable. The survey is therefore more reliable as a narrative review than as a benchmark comparison, and the empirical claims need to be re-anchored before the contribution is fully sound.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Table 2 and Table 3] The provenance of several table entries is impossible. Table 2 row 'C99 (Choi, 2000)' reports Pk=36.8 on en_city and 37.4 on en_disease, but Choi (2000) predates the Wikisection datasets (Arnold et al., 2019) by nearly two decades, so that citation cannot be the source of those numbers. Similarly, Table 3 row 'TextTiling (Solbiati et al., 2021)' reports Pk=44.1 on SuperDialseg, a dataset introduced by Jiang et al. (2023); the cited Solbiati et al. work cannot contain that result. The caption 'Results are reported from the works cited in the table' is therefore false for at least these cells, and possibly others. Because §5 uses these tables to conclude that supervised models largely outperform unsupervised systems and that ChatGPT outperforms all unsupervised methods, the empirical core of the survey currently lacks traceable evidence. Please provide the exact source (paper, table, and experimental setup) for every reported value, or re-run the systems under a documented protocol, and correct the table citations accordingly.
  2. [§5, Tables 2 and 3; §4] The comparison lists a single Pk value per system-dataset pair with no error bars, no statistical significance tests, no tokenization or preprocessing details, and no description of how values were selected when multiple configurations exist. The paper itself notes in §4 that Pk has well-documented flaws and in §5 that metrics and datasets vary across works, yet the inclusion criteria are not given. Consequently, the quantitative ranking—for example, 'models based on Longformer... show best performance on most benchmarks' and 'ChatGPT largely outperforms other unsupervised models'—may reflect differences in test splits, Pk window sizes, or preprocessing rather than system quality. Please make the comparison protocol explicit (datasets, splits, basic units, Pk parameters, and whether numbers come from original papers or from re-runs) and either add confidence measures or limit the conclusions to qualitative statements supported by direct citation.
  3. [§2.2.4 and §5] The claim that LLMs 'outperform all other unsupervised methods after careful prompt optimization' is stronger than the evidence presented. In Table 3, the only LLM result is a single ChatGPT value on SuperDialseg, with no comparison on other dialogue benchmarks and no measure of variance; the other unsupervised rows on the same dataset come from methods whose reported values are themselves of uncertain provenance, as noted above. Please either provide a reproducible evaluation protocol or soften the claim to state that, under the cited setups, ChatGPT reports the best unsupervised score on SuperDialseg in the authors' collected comparison.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'mole of content' appears to be a typographical error for 'mass of content' or 'bulk of content'; please correct it.
  2. [Table 2] The row labeled 'TextTiling (Choi, 2000)' misattributes TextTiling to Choi; the algorithm originates from Hearst (1994) and the Choi reference is for the dataset. Please correct the system attribution.
  3. [Table 1] The dataset name 'Non-NewsSBBC' is not expanded or explained; if this is intended to refer to a BBC news-related corpus, please clarify the name and the distinction from 'Media'.
  4. [§3.1] In the sentence about en_disease, 'at it includes a variety of rare medical terms' should be 'as it includes a variety of rare medical terms'.
  5. [§4] The sentence 'In our systems comparison, We also used Pk' has an erroneous capital 'W' in 'We'; please restructure or lowercase.
  6. [§6] The word 'hierachical' should be 'hierarchical' in the future-directions paragraph.
  7. [§4, Figures 2 and 3] The figures report metric frequencies in 'a sample of recent works we cited,' but the sample selection process and the exact set of works counted are not described; please define the sample so the reader can interpret the counts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's claims are literature summaries supported by external citations, and its self-citations are ordinary evidence rather than load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The paper is a survey and attempts no derivation or prediction from its own framework. Its central theses—that the field has shifted toward transformer-based features and supervised learning, that LLM-based methods are just beginning to be used, and that dataset availability and Pk's flaws are the main obstacles—are supported by the cited external literature and by the survey's collection of reported results. The self-citations (Ghinassi et al. 2023a/b/c, 2024) are used as ordinary evidence for empirical claims about encoder performance, generalization, and metric behavior; those works are independent published studies and are not used to define or force the survey's conclusions. The comparison tables do not reduce by construction: the table values are stated as reported from previous works, not computed from the survey's own assumptions. Even if some cells are misattributed or lack provenance, such as the C99/Choi entries on en_city/en_disease or the TextTiling/Solbiati entry on SuperDialseg, that is a factual or provenance error rather than circularity, because the empirical conclusion is not equivalent to its input; the input is an external empirical record whose reliability is a correctness concern, not a definitional one. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, fitted input renamed as prediction, or renamed known result is present. The limitations section acknowledges scope choices, but acknowledging limitations is not circular. Overall, no circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no fitted parameters or invented entities. Its conclusions depend on standard assumptions about NLP and on the accuracy of the cited papers' reported results; the most load-bearing assumptions are listed above.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Reported performance values in the cited papers are accurate and directly comparable across systems.
    The synthesis in Tables 2 and 3 and the conclusions drawn from them assume comparability of Pk scores measured by different authors on different versions of the same datasets.
  • domain assumption Pk, despite documented flaws, is a sufficient metric for the survey's system comparisons.
    All results in Tables 2 and 3 use Pk; the paper itself criticizes Pk in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The categorization of methods into unsupervised and supervised families, and into count-based, topic, embedding, and LLM types, is faithful to the cited methods.
    The survey does not re-implement systems; its taxonomy rests on the authors' reading of each cited paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recent Trends in Linear Text Segmentation: a Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMHD3Z6D

@misc{pith2026241116613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recent Trends in Linear Text Segmentation: a Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMHD3Z6D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16613}
}
read the original abstract

Linear Text Segmentation is the task of automatically tagging text documents with topic shifts, i.e. the places in the text where the topics change. A well-established area of research in Natural Language Processing, drawing from well-understood concepts in linguistic and computational linguistic research, the field has recently seen a lot of interest as a result of the surge of text, video, and audio available on the web, which in turn require ways of summarising and categorizing the mole of content for which linear text segmentation is a fundamental step. In this survey, we provide an extensive overview of current advances in linear text segmentation, describing the state of the art in terms of resources and approaches for the task. Finally, we highlight the limitations of available resources and of the task itself, while indicating ways forward based on the most recent literature and under-explored research directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Segmentation metrics comparison. Figure from Ghinassi et al. (2024) . the common F1, precision, and recall measures to include a tolerance window. Drawing on this, Boundary Similarity (Fournier, 2013), proposed more recently to overcome some of the problems with window-based metrics, works by representing the input sequence using the iden￾tity of the topic segment each element in the se￾quence belongs to. Given such… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overlaps between F1, Pk, Window Difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of occurrences of F1, Pk, Window Difference (WD), Boundary Similarity (B), and SegRe￾Free in cited works published after 2020. 5 Systems Comparison Having described unsupervised and supervised ap￾proaches for linear text segmentation proposed dur￾ing the years, table 2 and table 3 present a com￾parison of performance for different categories described above on some of the benchmarks de￾scribed in more details… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Chunk Twice, Embed Once: A Systematic Study of Segmentation and Representation Trade-offs in Chemistry-Aware Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A systematic evaluation shows that recursive 100-token non-overlapping chunks and retrieval-tuned embeddings outperform fixed-size chunks and domain-specific models like SciBERT for chemistry retrieval, and it introdu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Carbonell, George Doddington, Jonathan Yamron, and Yiming Yang

    James Allan, Jaime G. Carbonell, George Doddington, Jonathan Yamron, and Yiming Yang. 1998. Topic detection and tracking pilot study: Final report. In Proc. DARPA Broadcast News Transcription and Understanding Workshop

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Gers, and Alexander L \"o ser

    Sebastian Arnold, Rudolf Schneider, Philippe Cudr \'e -Mauroux, Felix A. Gers, and Alexander L \"o ser. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00261 SECTOR : A neural model for coherent topic segmentation and classification . In Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, volume 7, pages 169--184, Cambridge, MA. MIT Press

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00261 2019

  3. [3]

    Kurisinkel, Manish Gupta, and Vasudeva Varma

    Pinkesh Badjatiya, Litton J. Kurisinkel, Manish Gupta, and Vasudeva Varma. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76941-7_14 Attention-based neural text segmentation . In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 10772 LNCS

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76941-7_14 2018

  4. [4]

    Joe Barrow, Rajiv Jain, Vlad Morariu, Varun Manjunatha, Douglas Oard, and Philip Resnik. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.29 A joint model for document segmentation and segment labeling . In Proc. 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 313--322, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.29 2020

  5. [5]

    Regina Barzilay and Mirella Lapata. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2008.34.1.1 Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approach . In Computational Linguistics, volume 34

    doi:10.1162/coli.2008.34.1.1 2008

  6. [6]

    Doug Beeferman, Adam Berger, and John Lafferty. 1999. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007506220214 Statistical models for text segmentation . In Machine Learning, volume 34

    doi:10.1023/a:1007506220214 1999

  7. [7]

    Blei, Andrew Y

    David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-411519-4.00006-9 Latent dirichlet allocation . In Journal of Machine Learning Research, volume 3

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-411519-4.00006-9 2003

  8. [8]

    Freddy Y. Y. Choi. 2000. Linear text segmentation : approaches, advances and applications. In Proc. of CLUK 3

    work page 2000

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Lan Du, Wray Buntine, and Mark Johnson. 2013. https://aclanthology.org/N13-1019 Topic segmentation with a structured topic model . In Proc. 2013 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 190-...

    2013

  2. [10]

    Yaxin Fan and Feng Jiang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.08391 Uncovering the potential of chatgpt for discourse analysis in dialogue: An empirical study . In ArXiv

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chris Fournier. 2013. Evaluating text segmentation using boundary edit distance. In Proc. 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1702--1712

    2013

  4. [12]

    McKeown, Eric Fosler-Lussier, and Hongyan Jing

    Michel Galley, Kathleen R. McKeown, Eric Fosler-Lussier, and Hongyan Jing. 2003. https://doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075167 Discourse segmentation of multi-party conversation . In Proc. 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 562--569

    2003

  5. [13]

    Maria Georgescul, Alexander Clark, and Susan Armstrong. 2006. https://doi.org/10.3115/1654595.1654622 An analysis of quantitative aspects in the evaluation of thematic segmentation algorithms . In Proc. 7th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue

    2006

  6. [14]

    Iacopo Ghinassi. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4744399 Unsupervised text segmentation via deep sentence encoders: a first step towards a common framework for text-based segmentation, summarization and indexing of media content. In 2nd International Workshop on Data-driv...

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Iacopo Ghinassi, Lin Wang, Chris Newell, and Matthew Purver. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1593 Comparing neural sentence encoders for topic segmentation across domains: not your typical text similarity task . In PeerJ Computer Science

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Iacopo Ghinassi, Lin Wang, Chris Newell, and Matthew Purver. 2023 b . https://aclanthology.org/2023.ranlp-1.46 Lessons learnt from linear text segmentation: a fair comparison of architectural and sentence encoding strategies for successful segmentation . In Proc. 14th Internat...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Iacopo Ghinassi, Lin Wang, Chris Newell, and Matthew Purver. 2023 c . https://doi.org/10.1145/3591106.3592270 Multimodal topic segmentation of podcast shows with pre-trained neural encoders . In Proc. 2023 ACM International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, ICMR '23, page 60...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Iacopo Ghinassi, Lin Wang, Chris Newell, and Matthew Purver. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.1524 When cohesion lies in the embedding space: Embedding-based reference-free metrics for topic segmentation . In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference ...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Goran Glava s , Ananya Ganesh, and Swapna Somasundaran. 2021. https://aclanthology.org/2021.bea-1.11 Training and domain adaptation for supervised text segmentation . In Proc. 16th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 110--116, Online....

    2021

  12. [20]

    Goran Glavas, Federico Nanni, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/s16-2016 Unsupervised text segmentation using semantic relatedness graphs . In *SEM 2016 - 5th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Goran Glavaš and Swapna Somasundaran. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6284 Two-level transformer and auxiliary coherence modeling for improved text segmentation . In AAAI 2020 - 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Zheng Gong, Shiwei Tong, Han Wu, Qi Liu, Hanqing Tao, Wei Huang, and Runlong Yu. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00129-1_14 Tipster: A topic-guided language model for topic-aware text segmentation . In Database Systems for Advanced Applications: 27th International Conf...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Grosz and Candace L

    Barbara J. Grosz and Candace L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3):175–204

    1986

  16. [24]

    Halliday and Hasan Ruqaiya

    Michael A.K. Halliday and Hasan Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. Routledge

    1976

  17. [25]

    Marti A. Hearst. 1994. https://doi.org/10.3115/981732.981734 Multi-paragraph segmentation expository text . In Proc. 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 9--16. Association for Computational Linguistics

    1994

  18. [26]

    Hakan Inan, Rashi Rungta, and Yashar Mehdad. 2022. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:252567766 Structured summarization: Unified text segmentation and segment labeling as a generation task . In ArXiv, volume abs/2209.13759

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Adam Janin, Don Baron, Jane Edwards, Daniel Ellis, David Gelbart, Nelson Morgan, Barbara Peskin, Thilo Pfau, Elizabeth Shriberg, Andreas Stolcke, and Chuck Wooters. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2003.1198793 The icsi meeting corpus . In Proc. IEEE International Conferen...

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Junfeng Jiang, Chengzhang Dong, Sadao Kurohashi, and Akiko Aizawa. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.249 S uper D ialseg: A large-scale dataset for supervised dialogue segmentation . In Proc. 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Omri Koshorek, Adir Cohen, Noam Mor, Michael Rotman, and Jonathan Berant. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n18-2075 Text segmentation as a supervised learning task . In NAACL HLT 2018 - 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguis...

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Kelvin Lo, Yuan Jin, Weicong Tan, Ming Liu, Lan Du, and Wray L. Buntine. 2021. Transformer over pre-trained transformer for neural text segmentation with enhanced topic coherence. In EMNLP

    2021

  23. [31]

    Evan Lucas, Dylan Kangas, and Timothy Havens. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.195 A reference-free segmentation quality index ( S eg R e F ree) . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2957--2968, Singapore. Associ...

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Michael Lukasik, Boris Dadachev, Gonçalo Simões, and Kishore Papineni. 2020. Text segmentation by cross segment attention. In Proc. 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4707--4716

    2020

  25. [33]

    Hemant Misra, François Yvon, Olivier Cappé, and Joemon Jose. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2010.11.008 Text segmentation: A topic modeling perspective . In Information Processing & Management, volume 47

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    Lev Pevzner and Marti A. Hearst. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1162/089120102317341756 A Critique and Improvement of an Evaluation Metric for Text Segmentation . In Computational Linguistics, volume 28, pages 19--36

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    Matthew Purver. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119992691.ch11 Topic segmentation . In Spoken Language Understanding. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    Körding, Thomas L

    Matthew Purver, Konrad P. Körding, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2006. https://doi.org/10.3115/1220175.1220178 Unsupervised topic modelling for multi-party spoken discourse . In COLING/ACL 2006 - 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44...

    2006

  29. [37]

    Martin Riedl and Chris Biemann. 2012. Text segmentation with topic models. In Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics, volume 27

    2012

  30. [38]

    Martin Scaiano and Diana Inkpen. 2012. https://aclanthology.org/N12-1038 Getting more from segmentation evaluation . In Proc. 2012 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 362--366, Montr \'...

    2012

  31. [39]

    Imran Sehikh, Dominique Fohr, and Irina Illina. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASRU.2017.8268979 Topic segmentation in asr transcripts using bidirectional rnns for change detection . In 2017 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop, ASRU 2017 - Proceedings, ...

    2018

  32. [40]

    Alessandro Solbiati, Kevin Hefferman, Georgios Damaskinos, Shivani Poddar, Shubham Modi, and Jacques Cali. 2021. Unsupervised topic segmentation of meetings with bert embeddings. In arXiv

    2021

  33. [41]

    Qi Sun, Runxin Li, Dingsheng Luo, and Xihong Wu. 2008. https://doi.org/10.3115/1557690.1557768 Text segmentation with lda-based fisher kernel . In ACL-08: HLT - 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

    2008

  34. [42]

    Micha Sw e drowski, Piotr Mi kowski, Bart omiej Bojanowski, and Jan Koco \' n . 2022. Multi-wiki90k: Multilingual benchmark dataset for paragraph segmentation. In Advances in Computational Collective Intelligence, Cham. Springer International Publishing

    2022

  35. [43]

    Masao Utiyama and Hitoshi Isahara. 2001. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073012.1073076 A statistical model for domain-independent text segmentation . In Proc. 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 499--506, Toulouse, France. Association for Comp...

    2001

  36. [44]

    Huiyuan Xie, Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Zhiyuan Liu, and Ann Copestake. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.145 TIAGE : A benchmark for topic-shift aware dialog modeling . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1684-...

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Linzi Xing, Brad Hackinen, Giuseppe Carenini, and Francesco Trebbi. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.aacl-main.63 Improving context modeling in neural topic segmentation . In Proc. 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics a...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Yaakov Yaari. 1997. http://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9709015 Segmentation of expository texts by hierarchical agglomerative clustering . In CoRR, volume 3

    1997 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Jonathan Yamron, Ioana Carp, Larry Gillick, Savion Lowe, and Paul van Mulbregt. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.1998.674435 A hidden markov model approach to text segmentation and event tracking . In Proc. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal...

    1998

  40. [48]

    Hai Yu, Chong Deng, Qinglin Zhang, Jiaqing Liu, Qian Chen, and Wen Wang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.341 Improving long document topic segmentation models with enhanced coherence modeling . In Proc. 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language...

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Qinglin Zhang, Qian Chen, Yali Li, Jiaqing Liu, and Wen Wang. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASRU51503.2021.9688078 Sequence model with self-adaptive sliding window for efficient spoken document segmentation . In 2021 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Qinglin Zhang, Chong Deng, Jiaqing Liu, Hai Yu, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Zhijie Yan, Jinglin Liu, Yi Ren, and Zhou Zhao. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP49357.2023.10097149 Mug: A general meeting understanding and generation benchmark . In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International...

    2023

  43. [51]

    Zihan Zhang, Meng Fang, Ling Chen, and Mohammad Reza Namazi Rad. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.285 Is neural topic modelling better than clustering? an empirical study on clustering with contextual embeddings for topics . In Proc. 2022 Conference of the Nor...

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.472 QMS um: A new benchmark for query-based multi-domain meeting summariza...

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  46. [54]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.