Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracting events accurately from vast news corpora and organize events logically is critical for news apps and search engines, which aim to organize news information collected from the Internet and present it to users in the most sensible forms. Intuitively speaking, an event is a group of news documents that report the same news incident possibly in different ways. In this article, we describe our experience of implementing a news content organization system at Tencent to discover events from vast streams of breaking news and to evolve news story structures in an online fashion. Our real-world system faces unique challenges in contrast to previous studies on topic detection and tracking (TDT) and event timeline or graph generation, in that we (1) need to accurately and quickly extract distinguishable events from massive streams of long text documents, and (2) must develop the structures of event stories in an online manner, in order to guarantee a consistent user viewing experience. In solving these challenges, we propose Story Forest , a set of online schemes that automatically clusters streaming documents into events, while connecting related events in growing trees to tell evolving stories. A core novelty of our Story Forest system is EventX , a semi-supervised scheme to extract events from massive Internet news corpora. EventX relies on a two-layered, graph-based clustering procedure to group documents into fine-grained events. We conducted extensive evaluations based on (1) 60 GB of real-world Chinese news data, (2) a large Chinese Internet news dataset that contains 11,748 news articles with truth event labels, and (3) the 20 News Groups English dataset, through detailed pilot user experience studies. The results demonstrate the superior capabilities of Story Forest to accurately identify events and organize news text into a logical structure that is appealing to human readers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.038 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".