Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Sentence Centrality Revisited for Unsupervised Summarization

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1906.03508 v1 pith:ONTGOQUE submitted 2019-06-08 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords centralitysummarizationapproacharguingdatasetsdifferentdocumentlanguages
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Single document summarization has enjoyed renewed interests in recent years thanks to the popularity of neural network models and the availability of large-scale datasets. In this paper we develop an unsupervised approach arguing that it is unrealistic to expect large-scale and high-quality training data to be available or created for different types of summaries, domains, or languages. We revisit a popular graph-based ranking algorithm and modify how node (aka sentence) centrality is computed in two ways: (a)~we employ BERT, a state-of-the-art neural representation learning model to better capture sentential meaning and (b)~we build graphs with directed edges arguing that the contribution of any two nodes to their respective centrality is influenced by their relative position in a document. Experimental results on three news summarization datasets representative of different languages and writing styles show that our approach outperforms strong baselines by a wide margin.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. TrumorGPT: Graph-Based Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model for Fact-Checking

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A GPT-4-based fact-checking system with graph retrieval reports 88.5% binary accuracy on PolitiFact health claims, but the improvement over GPT-4 is not shown to come from the graph component.

Pith tools