Reaching for upper bound ROUGE score of extractive summarization methods

2022

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1103
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The extractive text summarization (ETS) method for finding the salient information from a text automatically uses the exact sentences from the source text. In this article, we answer the question of what quality of a summary we can achieve with ETS methods? To maximize the ROUGE-1 score, we used five approaches: (1) adapted reduced variable neighborhood search (RVNS), (2) Greedy algorithm, (3) VNS initialized by Greedy algorithm results, (4) genetic algorithm, and (5) genetic algorithm initialized by the Greedy algorithm results. Furthermore, we ran experiments on articles from the arXive dataset. As a result, we found 0.59 and 0.25 scores for ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-2, respectively achievable by the approach, where the genetic algorithm initialized by the Greedy algorithm results, which happens to yield the best results out of the tested approaches. Moreover, those scores appear to be higher than scores obtained by the current state-of-the-art text summarization models: the best score in the literature for ROUGE-1 on the same data set is 0.46. Therefore, we have room for the development of ETS methods, which are now undeservedly forgotten.