Balanced Coverage of Aspects for Text Summarization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a new model for the guided text summarization task. In this task, it is required that a generated summary covers all the aspects, which are predefined for the topic of the given document cluster; for example, aspects for the topic Accidents and Natural Disasters include WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, WHO AFFECTED, DAMAGES and COUNTERMEASURES. We use as a scorer for an aspect, the maximum entropy classifier that predicts whether each sentence reflects the aspect or not. We formalize the coverage of the aspects as a max-min problem, which enables a summary to cover aspects in a well-balanced manner. In the max-min problem, the minimum of the aspect scores is going to be maximized so that the summary contains all the aspects as much as possible. Furthermore, we integrate the model based on the max-min problem with the maximum coverage summarization model, which generates a summary containing as many conceptual units as possible. Through the experiments on benchmark datasets for the guided summarization, we show that our model outperforms other approaches in terms of ROUGE-2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".