Incremental Extractive Opinion Summarization Using Cover Trees

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08047v2
• Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:13:06 GMT
• Title: Incremental Extractive Opinion Summarization Using Cover Trees
• Authors: Somnath Basu Roy Chowdhury, Nicholas Monath, Avinava Dubey, Manzil Zaheer, Andrew McCallum, Amr Ahmed, Snigdha Chaturvedi,
• Abstract summary: In online marketplaces user reviews accumulate over time, and opinion summaries need to be updated periodically. In this work, we study the task of extractive opinion summarization in an incremental setting. We present an efficient algorithm for accurately computing the CentroidRank summaries in an incremental setting.
• Score: 81.59625423421355
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Extractive opinion summarization involves automatically producing a summary of text about an entity (e.g., a product's reviews) by extracting representative sentences that capture prevalent opinions in the review set. Typically, in online marketplaces user reviews accumulate over time, and opinion summaries need to be updated periodically to provide customers with up-to-date information. In this work, we study the task of extractive opinion summarization in an incremental setting, where the underlying review set evolves over time. Many of the state-of-the-art extractive opinion summarization approaches are centrality-based, such as CentroidRank (Radev et al., 2004; Chowdhury et al., 2022). CentroidRank performs extractive summarization by selecting a subset of review sentences closest to the centroid in the representation space as the summary. However, these methods are not capable of operating efficiently in an incremental setting, where reviews arrive one at a time. In this paper, we present an efficient algorithm for accurately computing the CentroidRank summaries in an incremental setting. Our approach, CoverSumm, relies on indexing review representations in a cover tree and maintaining a reservoir of candidate summary review sentences. CoverSumm's efficacy is supported by a theoretical and empirical analysis of running time. Empirically, on a diverse collection of data (both real and synthetically created to illustrate scaling considerations), we demonstrate that CoverSumm is up to 36x faster than baseline methods, and capable of adapting to nuanced changes in data distribution. We also conduct human evaluations of the generated summaries and find that CoverSumm is capable of producing informative summaries consistent with the underlying review set.

Related papers

• GLIMPSE: Pragmatically Informative Multi-Document Summarization for Scholarly Reviews [25.291384842659397]
  We introduce sys, a summarization method designed to offer a concise yet comprehensive overview of scholarly reviews. Unlike traditional consensus-based methods, sys extracts both common and unique opinions from the reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T15:27:01Z)
• Hierarchical Indexing for Retrieval-Augmented Opinion Summarization [60.5923941324953]
  We propose a method for unsupervised abstractive opinion summarization that combines the attributability and scalability of extractive approaches with the coherence and fluency of Large Language Models (LLMs) Our method, HIRO, learns an index structure that maps sentences to a path through a semantically organized discrete hierarchy. At inference time, we populate the index and use it to identify and retrieve clusters of sentences containing popular opinions from input reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T10:38:07Z)
• SummIt: Iterative Text Summarization via ChatGPT [12.966825834765814]
  We propose SummIt, an iterative text summarization framework based on large language models like ChatGPT. Our framework enables the model to refine the generated summary iteratively through self-evaluation and feedback. We also conduct a human evaluation to validate the effectiveness of the iterative refinements and identify a potential issue of over-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:40:06Z)
• Attributable and Scalable Opinion Summarization [79.87892048285819]
  We generate abstractive summaries by decoding frequent encodings, and extractive summaries by selecting the sentences assigned to the same frequent encodings. Our method is attributable, because the model identifies sentences used to generate the summary as part of the summarization process. It scales easily to many hundreds of input reviews, because aggregation is performed in the latent space rather than over long sequences of tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T11:30:37Z)
• Unsupervised Opinion Summarisation in the Wasserstein Space [22.634245146129857]
  We present WassOS, an unsupervised abstractive summarization model which makes use of the Wasserstein distance. We show that WassOS almost always outperforms the state-of-the-art on ROUGE metrics and consistently produces the best summaries according to human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-27T19:45:38Z)
• Podcast Summary Assessment: A Resource for Evaluating Summary Assessment Methods [42.08097583183816]
  We describe a new dataset, the podcast summary assessment corpus. This dataset has two unique aspects: (i) long-input, speech podcast based, documents; and (ii) an opportunity to detect inappropriate reference summaries in podcast corpus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-28T18:24:41Z)
• SNaC: Coherence Error Detection for Narrative Summarization [73.48220043216087]
  We introduce SNaC, a narrative coherence evaluation framework rooted in fine-grained annotations for long summaries. We develop a taxonomy of coherence errors in generated narrative summaries and collect span-level annotations for 6.6k sentences across 150 book and movie screenplay summaries. Our work provides the first characterization of coherence errors generated by state-of-the-art summarization models and a protocol for eliciting coherence judgments from crowd annotators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-19T16:01:47Z)
• Learning Opinion Summarizers by Selecting Informative Reviews [81.47506952645564]
  We collect a large dataset of summaries paired with user reviews for over 31,000 products, enabling supervised training. The content of many reviews is not reflected in the human-written summaries, and, thus, the summarizer trained on random review subsets hallucinates. We formulate the task as jointly learning to select informative subsets of reviews and summarizing the opinions expressed in these subsets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T15:01:43Z)
• What Makes a Good Summary? Reconsidering the Focus of Automatic Summarization [49.600619575148706]
  We find that the current focus of the field does not fully align with participants' wishes. Based on our findings, we argue that it is important to adopt a broader perspective on automatic summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-14T15:12:35Z)
• Align then Summarize: Automatic Alignment Methods for Summarization Corpus Creation [8.029049649310211]
  State-of-the-art on automatic text summarization mostly revolves around news articles. Our work consists in segmenting and aligning transcriptions with respect to reports, to get a suitable dataset for neural summarization. We report automatic alignment and summarization performances on a novel corpus of aligned public meetings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-15T17:03:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.