In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.

Example Input: Well-established automatic analyses of texts mainly consider frequencies of linguistic units, e.g. letters, words and bigrams, while methods based on cooccurrence networks consider the structure of texts regardless of the nodes label (i.e. the words semantics). In this paper, we reconcile these distinct viewpoints by introducing a generalized similarity measure to compare texts which accounts for both the network structure of texts and the role of individual words in the networks. We use the similarity measure for authorship attribution of three collections of books, each composed of 8 authors and 10 books per author. High accuracy rates were obtained with typical values from 90% to 98.75%, much higher than with the traditional the TF-IDF approach for the same collections. These accuracies are also higher than taking only the topology of networks into account. We conclude that the different properties of specific words on the macroscopic scale structure of a whole text are as relevant as their frequency of appearance; conversely, considering the identity of nodes brings further knowledge about a piece of text represented as a network.
Example Output: On the role of words in the network structure of texts: application to authorship attribution

Example Input: Online learning aims to perform nearly as well as the best hypothesis in hindsight. For some hypothesis classes, though, even finding the best hypothesis offline is challenging. In such offline cases, local search techniques are often employed and only local optimality guaranteed. For online decision-making with such hypothesis classes, we introduce local regret, a generalization of regret that aims to perform nearly as well as only nearby hypotheses. We then present a general algorithm to minimize local regret with arbitrary locality graphs. We also show how the graph structure can be exploited to drastically speed learning. These algorithms are then demonstrated on a diverse set of online problems: online disjunct learning, online Max-SAT, and online decision tree learning.
Example Output: On Local Regret

Example Input: The objective of machine learning is to extract useful information from data, while privacy is preserved by concealing information. Thus it seems hard to reconcile these competing interests. However, they frequently must be balanced when mining sensitive data. For example, medical research represents an important application where it is necessary both to extract useful information and protect patient privacy. One way to resolve the conflict is to extract general characteristics of whole populations without disclosing the private information of individuals. In this paper, we consider differential privacy, one of the most popular and powerful definitions of privacy. We explore the interplay between machine learning and differential privacy, namely privacy-preserving machine learning algorithms and learning-based data release mechanisms. We also describe some theoretical results that address what can be learned differentially privately and upper bounds of loss functions for differentially
Example Output:
Differential Privacy and Machine Learning: a Survey and Review