skip to main content
10.1145/1076034.1076072acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Do summaries help?

Published:15 August 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

We describe a task-based evaluation to determine whether multi-document summaries measurably improve user performance whe using online news browsing systems for directed research. We evaluated the multi-document summaries generated by Newsblaster, a robust news browsing system that clusters online news articles and summarizes multiple articles on each event. Four groups of subjects were asked to perform the same time-restricted fact-gathering tasks, reading news under different conditions: no summaries at all, single sentence summaries drawn from one of the articles, Newsblaster multi-document summaries, and human summaries. Our results show that, in comparison to source documents only, the quality of reports assembled using Newsblaster summaries was significantly better and user satisfaction was higher with both Newsblaster and human summaries.

References

  1. E. Amigo, J. Gonzalo, V. Peinado, A. Penas, and F. Verdejo. An empirical study of information synthesis tasks. In Proceedings of ACL-04, Barcelona, Spain, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. W. Bodnar. Warning Analysis for the Information Age: Rethinking the Intelligence Process. Center for Strategic Intelligence Research, Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington, D.C., 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. R. Brandow, K. Mitze, and L. Rau. Automatic condensation of electronic publications by sentence selection. Information Processing and Management, 31(5):675--685, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Colbath and F. Kubala. Tap-xl: An automated analyst's assistant. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2003), Edmunton, Alberta, Ca., 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. H. Daume, A. Echihabi, D. Marcu, D. S. Munteanu, and R. Soricut. Gleans: A generator of logical extracts and abstracts for nice sumamries. In Proceedings of the Second Document Understanding Workshop (DUC-2002), Philadelphia, Pa., 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Proceeding of the second, third and forth document understanding conference, 2002, 2003, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. H. Halteren and S. Teufel. Examining the consensus between human summaries: initial experiments with factoid analysis. In HLT-NAACL DUC Workshop, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. T. Hand. A proposal for task-based evaluation of text summarization systems. In Proceedings of ACL/EACL-97 Summarization Workshop, pages 31--36, Madrid, Spain, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. F. J. Hughes and D. A. Schum. Evidence marshaling and argument construction: Case study no. 4, the sign of the crescent (analysis), January 2003. Manuscript developed for exclusive use by the Joint Military Intelligence College; not for distribution.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. H. Jing, R. Barzilay, K. McKeown, and M. Elhadad. Summarization evaluation methods: Experiments and analysis. In AAAI Symposium on Intelligent Summarization, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C.-Y. Lin and E. Hovy. From single to multi-document summarization: A prototype system and its evaluation. In Proceedings of the ACL, pages 457--464, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. C.-Y. Lin and E. Hovy. Automatic evaluation of summaries using n-gram co-occurance statistics. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2003, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. I. Mani and E. Bloedorn. Multi-document summarization by graph search and matching. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-97), pages 622--628, Providence, Rhode Island, 1997. AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. K. R. McKeown, R. Barzilay, D. Evans, V. Hatzivassiloglou, J. L. Klavans, A. Nenkova, C. Sable, B. Schiffman, and S. Sigelman. Tracking and summarizing news on a daily basis with columbia's newsblaster. In Proceedings of 2002 Human Language Technology Conference (HLT), San Diego, CA, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Nenkova and R. Passonneau. Evaluating content selection in summarization: The pyramid method. In Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2004, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. D. R. Radev, S. Blair-Goldensohn, Z. Zhang, and R. Sundara Raghavan. Newsinessence: A system for domain-independent, real-time news clustering and multi-document summarization. In Human Language Technology Conference (Demo Session), San Diego, CA, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. K. Sparck-Jones and J. R. Galliers. Evaluating Natural Language Processing Systems: An Analysis and Review. Springer, Berlin, 1995. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1083.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Do summaries help?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGIR '05: Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
      August 2005
      708 pages
      ISBN:1595930345
      DOI:10.1145/1076034

      Copyright © 2005 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 August 2005

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader