This paper presents a novel research problem on joint discovery of commonalities and differences between two individual documents (or document sets), called Comparative Document Analysis (CDA). Given any pair of documents from a document collection, CDA aims to automatically identify sets of quality phrases to summarize the commonalities of both documents and highlight the distinctions of each with respect to the other informatively and concisely. Our solution uses a general graph-based framework to derive novel measures on phrase semantic commonality and pairwise distinction , and guides the selection of sets of phrases by solving two joint optimization problems. We develop an iterative algorithm to integrate the maximization of phrase commonality or distinction measure with the learning of phrase-document semantic relevance in a mutually enhancing way. Experiments on text corpora from two different domains---scientific publications and news---demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed method on comparing individual documents. Our case study on comparing news articles published at different dates shows the power of the proposed method on comparing document sets.
Multi-document summarization @cite_16 @cite_32 @cite_33 @cite_17 @cite_30 aims to generate a compressed summary to cover the consensus of information among the original documents. It is different from discovery as it focuses on providing comprehensive view of the corpus (union instead of intersection).
@cite_30 @cite_33 @cite_32 @cite_16 @cite_17
1980813323 1936155969 2611254175 2252239149
This paper discusses a text extraction approach to multi-document summarization that builds on single-document summarization methods by using additional, available information about the document set as a whole and the relationships between the documents. Multi-document summarization differs from single in that the issues of compression, speed, redundancy and passage selection are critical in the formation of useful summaries. Our approach addresses these issues by using domain-independent techniques based mainly on fast, statistical processing, a metric for reducing redundancy and maximizing diversity in the selected passages, and a modular framework to allow easy parameterization for different genres, corpora characteristics and user requirements. In many decision-making scenarios, people can benefit from knowing what other people's opinions are. As more and more evaluative documents are posted on the Web, summarizing these useful resources becomes a critical task for many organizations and individuals. This paper presents a framework for summarizing a corpus of evaluative documents about a single entity by a natural language summary. We propose two summarizers: an extractive summarizer and an abstractive one. As an additional contribution, we show how our abstractive summarizer can be modified to generate summaries tailored to a model of the user preferences that is solidly grounded in decision theory and can be effectively elicited from users. We have tested our framework in three user studies. In the first one, we compared the two summarizers. They performed equally well relative to each other quantitatively, while significantly outperforming a baseline standard approach to multidocument summarization. Trends in the results as well as qualitative comments from participants suggest that the summarizers have different strengths and weaknesses. After this initial user study, we realized that the diversity of opinions expressed in the corpus (i.e., its controversiality) might play a critical role in comparing abstraction versus extraction. To clearly pinpoint the role of controversiality, we ran a second user study in which we controlled for the degree of controversiality of the corpora that were summarized for the participants. The outcome of this study indicates that for evaluative text abstraction tends to be more effective than extraction, particularly when the corpus is controversial. In the third user study we assessed the effectiveness of our user tailoring strategy. The results of this experiment confirm that user tailored summaries are more informative than untailored ones. Abstractive summarization aims to generate a shorter version of the document covering all the salient points in a compact and coherent fashion. On the other hand, query-based summarization highlights those points that are relevant in the context of a given query. The encode-attend-decode paradigm has achieved notable success in machine translation, extractive summarization, dialog systems, etc. But it suffers from the drawback of generation of repeated phrases. In this work we propose a model for the query-based summarization task based on the encode-attend-decode paradigm with two key additions (i) a query attention model (in addition to document attention model) which learns to focus on different portions of the query at different time steps (instead of using a static representation for the query) and (ii) a new diversity based attention model which aims to alleviate the problem of repeating phrases in the summary. In order to enable the testing of this model we introduce a new query-based summarization dataset building on debatepedia. Our experiments show that with these two additions the proposed model clearly outperforms vanilla encode-attend-decode models with a gain of 28 (absolute) in ROUGE-L scores. We present a dual decomposition framework for multi-document summarization, using a model that jointly extracts and compresses sentences. Compared with previous work based on integer linear programming, our approach does not require external solvers, is significantly faster, and is modular in the three qualities a summary should have: conciseness, informativeness, and grammaticality. In addition, we propose a multi-task learning framework to take advantage of existing data for extractive summarization and sentence compression. Experiments in the TAC2008 dataset yield the highest published ROUGE scores to date, with runtimes that rival those of extractive summarizers.