Query-biased summarization based on lexical chaining

Computational Intelligence

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 578-585

  Manabu, Okumura ^a   Hajime, Mochizuki ^a  

^a JAPAN ADVANCED INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; TEXT PROCESSING;

AUTOMATIC TEXT SUMMARIZATION;

QUERY LANGUAGES;

EID: 0034318907     PISSN: 08247935     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0824-7935.00128     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. BARZILAY, R., and M. ELHADAD. 1997. Using lexical chains for text summarization. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarization, pp. 10-17.
2. BRANDOW, R., K. MITZE, and L. F. RAU. 1995. Automatic condensation of electronic publications by sentence selection. Information Processing and Management, 31(5):675-685.
3. HALLIDAY, H. A. K., and R. HASSAN. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman, London.
4. HAND, T. F. 1997. A proposal for task-based evaluation of text summarization systems. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarization, pp. 31-38.
5. JING, H., R. BARZILAY, K. MCKEOWN, and M. ELHADAD. 1998. Summarization evaluation methods: Experiments and analysis. In Intelligent Text Summarization. AAAI Press, Technical Report SS-98-06, pp. 51-59.
6. KITANI, T., et al. 1998. BMIR-J2: A test collection for evaluation of Japanese information retrieval systems. In IPSJ SIG-DBS Notes 114, pp. 15-22, in Japanese.
7. KUPIEC, J., J. PEDERSEN, and F. CHEN. 1995. A trainable document summarizer. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 68-73.
8. LUHN, H. P. 1958. The automatic creation of literature abstracts. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 2(2): 159-165.
9. MANI, I. et al. 1998. The TIPSTER summac text summarization evaluation. Technical Report MTR 98W0000138, MITRE. Available at http://www.itl.nist.gov/div894/894.02/ related_projects/tipster_summac/index.html.
10. MILLER, G. 1990. Wordnet: An online lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4): 235-312.
11. MITTAL, V., M. KANTROWITZ, J. GOLDSTEIN, and J. CARBONELL. 1999. Selecting text spans for document summaries: Heuristics and metrices. In Proceedings of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 467-473.
12. MORRIS, J., and G. HIRST. 1991. Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of the text. Computational Linguistics, 17(1):21-48.
13. MORRIS, A. H., G. M. KASPER, and D. A. ADAMS. 1992. The effects and limitations of automated text condensing on reading comprehension performance. Information Systems Research. 3(1): 17-35.
14. PAICE, C. D. 1990. Constructing literature abstracts by computer: Techniques and prospects. Information Processing and Management, 26(1): 171-186.
15. SALTON, G., 1989. Automatic Text Processing. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
16. SANFILIPPO, A. 1998. Ranking text units according to textual relevance and connectivity and topic aptness. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1157-1163.
17. SKOROKHOD'KO, E. F. 1972. Adaptive method of automatic abstracting and indexing. In Information Processing 71. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 1179-1182.
18. TOMBROS, A., and M. SANDERSON. 1998. Advantages of query biased summaries in information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 2-10.