Question: Which approaches did they use?
Evidence: We compared several summarization methods which can be categorized into three groups: unsupervised, non-neural supervised, and neural supervised methods. For the unsupervised methods, we tested:
SumBasic, which uses word frequency to rank sentences and selects top sentences as the summary BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 .
Lsa, which uses latent semantic analysis (LSA) to decompose the term-by-sentence matrix of a document and extracts sentences based on the result. We experimented with the two approaches proposed in BIBREF15 and BIBREF16 respectively.
LexRank, which constructs a graph representation of a document, where nodes are sentences and edges represent similarity between two sentences, and runs PageRank algorithm on that graph and extracts sentences based on the resulting PageRank values BIBREF17 . In the original implementation, sentences shorter than a certain threshold are removed. Our implementation does not do this removal to reduce the number of tunable hyperparameters. Also, it originally uses cross-sentence informational subsumption (CSIS) during sentence selection stage but the paper does not explain it well. Instead, we used an approximation to CSIS called cross-sentence word overlap described in BIBREF18 by the same authors.
TextRank, which is very similar to LexRank but computes sentence similarity based on the number of common tokens BIBREF19 .
Bayes, which represents each sentence as a feature vector and uses naive Bayes to classify them BIBREF5 . The original paper computes TF-IDF score on multi-word tokens that are identified automatically using mutual information. We did not do this identification, so our TF-IDF computation operates on word tokens.
Hmm, which uses hidden Markov model where states correspond to whether the sentence should be extracted BIBREF20 . The original work uses QR decomposition for sentence selection but our implementation does not. We simply ranked the sentences by their scores and picked the top 3 as the summary.
MaxEnt, which represents each sentence as a feature vector and leverages maximum entropy model to compute the probability of a sentence should be extracted BIBREF21 . The original approach puts a prior distribution over the labels but we put the prior on the weights instead. Our implementation still agrees with the original because we employed a bias feature which should be able to learn the prior label distribution.
As for the neural supervised method, we evaluated NeuralSum BIBREF11 using the original implementation by the authors. We modified their implementation slightly to allow for evaluating the model with ROUGE. Note that all the methods are extractive. Our implementation code for all the methods above is available online.
As a baseline, we used Lead-N which selects INLINEFORM0 leading sentences as the summary. For all methods, we extracted 3 sentences as the summary since it is the median number of sentences in the gold summaries that we found in our exploratory analysis.
We compared several summarization methods which can be categorized into three groups: unsupervised, non-neural supervised, and neural supervised methods. For the unsupervised methods, we tested:
SumBasic, which uses word frequency to rank sentences and selects top sentences as the summary BIBREF13 , BIBREF14 .
Lsa, which uses latent semantic analysis (LSA) to decompose the term-by-sentence matrix of a document and extracts sentences based on the result. We experimented with the two approaches proposed in BIBREF15 and BIBREF16 respectively.
LexRank, which constructs a graph representation of a document, where nodes are sentences and edges represent similarity between two sentences, and runs PageRank algorithm on that graph and extracts sentences based on the resulting PageRank values BIBREF17 .
TextRank, which is very similar to LexRank but computes sentence similarity based on the number of common tokens BIBREF19 .
Bayes, which represents each sentence as a feature vector and uses naive Bayes to classify them BIBREF5 . The original paper computes TF-IDF score on multi-word tokens that are identified automatically using mutual information. We did not do this identification, so our TF-IDF computation operates on word tokens.
Hmm, which uses hidden Markov model where states correspond to whether the sentence should be extracted BIBREF20 . The original work uses QR decomposition for sentence selection but our implementation does not. We simply ranked the sentences by their scores and picked the top 3 as the summary.
MaxEnt, which represents each sentence as a feature vector and leverages maximum entropy model to compute the probability of a sentence should be extracted BIBREF21 . The original approach puts a prior distribution over the labels but we put the prior on the weights instead. Our implementation still agrees with the original because we employed a bias feature which should be able to learn the prior label distribution.
As for the neural supervised method, we evaluated NeuralSum BIBREF11 using the original implementation by the authors. We modified their implementation slightly to allow for evaluating the model with ROUGE. Note that all the methods are extractive. Our implementation code for all the methods above is available online.
As a baseline, we used Lead-N which selects INLINEFORM0 leading sentences as the summary. For all methods, we extracted 3 sentences as the summary since it is the median number of sentences in the gold summaries that we found in our exploratory analysis.
Answer: The answers are shown as follows:
* SumBasic
* Lsa
* LexRank
* TextRank
* Bayes
* Hmm
* MaxEnt
* NeuralSum
* Lead-N