Automatic text summarization based on extractive-abstractive method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of this study has a significant impact on daily life. In various fields such as journalism, academia, business, and more, large amounts of text need to be processed quickly and efficiently. Text summarization is a technique used to generate a precise and shortened summary of spacious texts. The generated summary sustains overall meaning without losing any information and focuses on those parts that contain useful information. The goal is to develop a model that converts lengthy articles into concise versions. The task to be solved is to select an effective procedure to develop the model. Although the present text summarization models give us good results in many recognized datasets such as cnn/daily- mail, newsroom, etc. All the problems can not be resolved by these models. In this paper, a new text summarization method has been proposed: combining the Extractive and Abstractive Text Summarization technique. In the extractive-based method, the model generates a summary using Sentence Ranking Algorithm and passes this generated summary through an abstractive method. When using the sentence ranking algorithm, after rearranging the sentences, the relationship between one sentence and another sentence is destroyed. To overcome this situation, Pronoun to Noun conversion has been proposed with the new system. After generating the extractive summary, the generated summary is passed through the abstractive method. The proposed abstractive model consists of three pre-trained models: google/pegusus-xsum, face-book/bart-large-cnn model, and Yale-LILY/brio-cnndm-uncased, which generates a final summary depending on the maximum final score. The following results were obtained: experimental results on CNN/daily-mail dataset show that the proposed model obtained scores of ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L are respectively 42.67 %, 19.35 %, and 39.57 %. Then, the result has been compared with three state-of-the-art methods: JEANS, DEATS and PGAN-ATSMT. The results outperform state-of-the-art models. Experimental results also show that the proposed model is qualitatively readable and can generate abstract summaries. Conclusion: In terms of ROUGE score, the model outperforms some art-of-the-state models for ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L, but doesn’t achieve good result in 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".