Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 118 references

TalkLess: Blending Extractive and Abstractive Speech Summarization for Editing Speech to Preserve Content and Style

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read TalkLess shows that speech can be condensed to a target length by reusing the original recording for nearly every word and synthesizing only the short stitches between cuts, preserving both content and the speaker's voice.

desk verdict TalkLess is a genuinely new blend of extractive cuts with synthesized insertions and the user study is solid, but the headline coverage result is partly by construction because the evaluation metric is the same objective being optimized. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15202 v2 pith:HACSNA76 submitted 2025-07-21 cs.HC

Karim Benharrak , Puyuan Peng , Amy Pavel This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords speecheditingaudiosummarizationextractiveabstractivetranscript-basedcreativitysupporttoolssynthesiscognitiveload
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes TalkLess, a transcript-based editor that shortens unscripted speech by cutting words out of the original recording and, only where needed, synthesizing short connecting words in the speaker's voice. Its claim is that this flexible blend of extractive and abstractive summarization beats both extremes: a pure extractive summarizer keeps disfluencies and drops important information, while fully re-synthesizing an abstractive summary strips the speaker's style. The paper presents a technical comparison showing higher content coverage and fewer speech errors than a strong extractive baseline, a 12-participant study in which editors reported lower cognitive load and editing effort, and a 3-creator exploratory study in which speakers preferred their own edited audio over a fully synthesized clone. A sympathetic reader should take the paper to establish that 'reuse original speech, synthesize only the stitches' is a viable and preferred design point for speech-condensing tools.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the candidate evaluation function $E(C_{i,j},\tau)=\lambda_1 E_{\text{comp}}+\lambda_2 E_{\text{edits}}+\lambda_3 E_{\text{len}}+\lambda_4 E_{\text{cov}}$ with empirically set weights $0.4, 0.15, 0.1, 0.35$. It scores each of 25 LLM-generated shortened transcripts per segment by how close the candidate lands to the target compression, how few edit chunks a Needleman-Wunsch alignment between original and candidate produces, how short the synthesized insertions are, and how much semantic coverage it keeps of the original sentences. This one function is what turns unreliable LLM shortening into dependable shortening: the paper's ablation reports that LLM-only outputs missed the compression target by 0 to 73 percentage points and achieved 62% average coverage, while the optimization-based selection missed by 1 to 3 points and reached 84% average coverage. It is also what keeps the pipeline mostly extractive, holding the mean synthesized insertion to 1.45 words.

What would settle it

Take a 3-minute unscripted clip with a known list of filler words, repetitions, and key facts, run TalkLess at 25% compression, and ask listeners to mark any word that sounds synthesized and to recall the key facts; the central claim would be falsified if any synthesized word is reliably identifiable or if fact recall from the edited audio falls below fact recall from the extractive baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a mostly extractive transcript editor, with short abstractive insertions only where they are needed to join or clarify surviving speech, condenses unscripted recordings better than either extreme. Concretely, TalkLess retains more of the original content at 15%, 25%, and 75% target compressions, removes more speech disfluencies, creates fewer coherence errors, stays closer to the original transcript's style than full abstraction, and is significantly preferred by listeners at 15% and 25% compression. In the authors' telling, the reason is that every edit is scored before it is made, and the score penalizes exactly the things prior extractive systems get wrong: missing the target length, leaving edits that force extra synthesis, and losing semantic coverage.

Load-bearing premise

The system's promise of natural, style-preserving shortened audio depends on the speech-editing model rendering every cut, transition, and insertion cleanly, and the paper itself notes that the model runs at 16 kHz, can drop or distort words, and left every creator in the exploratory study hearing at least one audible cut.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At low target compressions (15–25%), TalkLess's output is significantly preferred over an extractive baseline while retaining more content, making the method a fit for information-rich edits such as condensing lectures.
  • Editors using TalkLess manually edit fewer words at the same compression level (478 vs. 807 on average), which the paper ties to significantly lower mental demand, effort, and frustration.
  • The method's advantage grows with informal, unscripted speech that contains many disfluencies, because word-level edits can remove exactly those errors while sentence-level extraction preserves them.
  • Because the exploratory study shows speakers reject full re-synthesis of their own voice, the 'mostly extractive, synthesize only to stitch' design is the one creators themselves say preserves authenticity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the same candidate-scoring pipeline could generalize to video, because it solves the audio discontinuity that arises when visual summarization cuts frames; a video summarizer could reuse TalkLess's audio edits to keep speech coherent.
  • Beyond the paper: the objective function is effectively a dial between extractive and abstractive editing; setting the insertion-length penalty extremely high yields near-pure extraction, while lowering it permits more rewriting, so one system can cover the whole spectrum.
  • Beyond the paper: coverage as measured by sentence-embedding similarity may overstate information preservation; a stronger check would test whether listeners can answer factual questions about the edited audio rather than only preferring it.
  • Beyond the paper: because every creator in the exploratory study heard at least one audible cut, the ceiling on the current user experience is the speech-editing model's naturalness, so improvements to that model should transfer directly to TalkLess.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents TalkLess, a transcript-based speech editing system that shortens recorded speech by combining extractive transcript edits with occasional abstractive insertions and then rendering the edits with the VoiceCraft speech editing model. TalkLess introduces an optimization-based candidate selection function that balances compression, edit count, insertion length, and coverage; an interface with compression, outline, and audio panes; and a set of evaluations: a technical comparison against the ROPE extractive baseline on four recordings, a preference study (N=12), and an exploratory study with three creators editing their own speech. The headline claims are that TalkLess yields higher content coverage and removes more speech errors than extractive baselines while preserving content and style, and that it reduces editing effort and cognitive load for human editors.

Significance. The potential contribution is substantial. If the coverage and style claims are established, TalkLess offers a practical middle path between rigid extractive shortening and full abstractive re-synthesis for speech editing, and the interface design---separating low-level wording edits from high-level content decisions---is a plausible and useful contribution. The manuscript is generally clearly written and unusually detailed in its prompts, scoring equations, and evaluation materials. The user study is careful, with counterbalancing, standard instruments (NASA-TLX, CSI, SUS), and behavioral logs, and the exploratory study with creators provides a useful authenticity check against full voice cloning. However, the headline coverage advantage is compromised by circularity between the selection objective and the evaluation metric, and the style evidence is transcript-only, so the central claims need qualification or additional evidence before they can be accepted as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3.1, Table 2, Fig. 5] The 'Coverage' evaluation metric is the same E_cov term that the candidate scorer explicitly maximizes. Section 3.3.1 defines E_cov(C_i,j) as the average over original sentences of the maximum cosine similarity to a sentence in the candidate, using all-mpnet-base-v2 embeddings, and Table 2's 'Coverage' metric has exactly this description. Since TalkLess selects the candidate with the highest E = 0.4 E_comp + 0.15 E_edits + 0.1 E_len + 0.35 E_cov, the reported coverage advantage over ROPE in Figure 5 reflects, to an unknown degree, the fact that TalkLess is optimizing the evaluation metric while ROPE is not. The ablation in Table 3, where the optimization step increases coverage by roughly 15 points over LLM-only, shows that selection drives precisely this metric. I recommend supplementing or replacing this with an independent coverage measure (e.g., atomic-fact recall judged by humans, information-retention questions, or embeddings from a model not used in selection) and reporting coverage on the final rendered audio, or explicitly qualifying the claim as 'coverage under the designed selection objective.'
  2. [§3.3.1, §4.1] The E_comp equation appears to be inconsistent with the paper's own definition of compression. Section 4.1 states that 'a 20% compression means that the text has been shortened by 20%', so the target length ratio for compression τ should be 1−τ. The equation E_comp = 1 − |length(C)/length(S) − τ|, with τ ∈ {0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75}, instead rewards candidates whose length ratio is close to τ (e.g., 15% retained words for a 15% compression target, i.e., 85% compression). Please clarify whether τ denotes the fraction removed or the fraction retained, correct the equation if needed, and recompute the compression-deviation statistics in Table 3 accordingly.
  3. [§4.1, §4.2, Table 2, §6] The 'Style Preservation' metric is computed on transcripts, not on audio. Table 2 describes it as cosine similarity between content-independent style representations of transcripts, and Figure 11 compares transcript style. This does not measure the para-linguistic style (pitch, timing, pauses, prosody) that design goal G3 and the abstract's 'preserving its content and style' emphasize. The exploratory study (N=3) provides qualitative evidence about voice authenticity versus full re-synthesis, but it is small, and the paper reports that all creators noticed at least one audible cut. The style-preservation claim should either be supported by a perceptual audio identity/style test or be narrowed to transcript-level style.
  4. [§3.4, Table 3, §4.2] The reported compression-deviation statistics are internally inconsistent. Section 3.4 says TalkLess deviated from the compression target by 1-3 percentage points (μ=2), but Table 3 reports optimization deviations of 7.53% for 15% target, 8.42% for 25% target, and an overall mean of 5.28%; Section 4.2 later reports a mean deviation of 3%. These numbers cannot all be correct. Please provide consistent statistics and verify that the reported figures correspond to the same definition of compression.
  5. [§3.3.1, §6, §7.2] The naturalness of the final audio is a load-bearing part of the contribution, but the paper's own evidence and limitations suggest it is not established at higher compression levels. Section 7.2 concedes that VoiceCraft 'operates at low fidelity (16kHz sample rate) and can have unstable performance, such as dropped or distorted words,' and Section 6 reports that all three creators noticed at least one audible cut. In the results evaluation, audio preference is significant only at 15% and 25% compression, not at 50% or 75%. I recommend reporting edit-generation success rates (e.g., fraction of dropped or distorted synthesized segments) and a perceptual audio-quality assessment per compression level, or tempering claims about natural, style-preserving audio to lower compression ranges.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1] The text says 'We used five evaluation metrics,' but Table 2 lists six metrics (Speech Disfluencies, Coherence Errors, Coverage, Style Preservation, Audio Preference, and the original audio baseline described in the prose). Please correct the count or the table.
  2. [§6] The exploratory study introduces 'three creators C1–C31'; this should read C1–C3.
  3. [§4.2] The sentence 'We found a significant difference inMETHOD' is incomplete or contains a formatting error; please supply the dependent variable and proper spacing.
  4. [§5.2.1] The phrase 'TalkLess (average of 478 manually edited words in TalkLess compared to 807 words in the baseline)' is grammatically redundant; please rephrase.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Coverage advantage is partly by construction: the evaluation metric duplicates the E_cov term in the candidate scorer, so the headline coverage result is not independent of the objective being optimized.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3.1 (candidate evaluation E and E_cov, C*_i = arg max_j E) vs. Section 4.1/Table 2 (Coverage metric) and Section 4.2 (coverage results)]
    "E(C_i,j,τ) = λ1·E_comp + λ2·E_edits + λ3·E_len + λ4·E_cov ... We empirically determined weights ... λ4 = 0.35 ... E_cov(C_i,j) = 1/|S_i| Σ_{s∈S_i} max_{c∈C_i,j} sim(s,c) ... we select the candidate with the highest score C*_i = arg max_j E(C_i,j). Table 2 Coverage: "computing cosine similarities between sentence embeddings of the transcript and summary, selecting the highest similarity per transcript sentence, then averaging these scores.""

    The Coverage metric in Table 2 is the same sentence-embedding max-similarity average as the E_cov term in the selection objective. Since C*_i is chosen by arg max over a weighted sum containing λ4·E_cov with λ4 = 0.35, TalkLess is directly selecting candidates to maximize the exact quantity later reported as coverage. The baseline ROPE does not optimize this objective, so the significant coverage advantage reported in Section 4.2 is partly produced by construction rather than being an independent content-preservation outcome. Table 3 confirms the effect by showing that adding the optimization step raises the same coverage metric from a 62% LLM-only mean to 77%.

full rationale

The circularity is confined to the first half of the headline claim, "higher coverage." The Coverage evaluation metric in Table 2 is definitionally the E_cov term that the candidate selector maximizes with weight λ4 = 0.35 (Section 3.3.1), and the reported significant coverage advantage in Section 4.2 therefore partly measures whether the optimizer can increase its own objective rather than an externally validated content-preservation property. The ablation in Table 3 makes this explicit: optimization raises coverage from 62% to 77% on the same metric. The paper's other main results are independent: speech-disfluency removal, coherence-error counts, style-preservation similarity to the original transcript, and human audio preferences are measured with metrics not used in the selection function, and these support the system. The VoiceCraft self-citation is not circular because VoiceCraft is an external open-source model whose instability and 16kHz limitation are explicitly acknowledged in Section 7.2, and the audio-preference evidence stands independently. Because the coverage claim is central and reduces, in part, to the optimizer's own objective, the appropriate score is a 6: partial circularity, not total.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system contributes orchestration and UI, not new theory. Free parameters are the λ weights, candidate counts, and audio-editing heuristics; these were chosen empirically and are not derived. The main domain assumption is that the sentence-transformer similarity meaningfully measures information coverage, which is used both to select and to evaluate candidates.

free parameters (4)
  • Scoring weights λ1..λ4 = 0.4, 0.15, 0.1, 0.35
    Empirically determined balance between compression match, edit count, insertion length, and coverage; no holdout or tuning procedure reported. They directly control which LLM candidate is chosen.
  • Number of candidate summaries per segment = 25
    Chosen from early experiments; not derived from theory.
  • VoiceCraft generation attempts = 5
    Shortest generation among 5 is selected for transitions; hand-chosen heuristic to reduce artifacts.
  • Transition length cap = 0.6 seconds
    Cuts are aligned to natural pauses when possible and kept under 0.6s, an empirically chosen threshold.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o generates valid and diverse shortened transcripts that follow the eight prompt guidelines.
    The entire pipeline depends on LLM candidate generation; the paper only tests GPT-4o and does not validate diversity or quality independently.
  • domain assumption all-mpnet-base-v2 sentence embeddings capture content coverage for speech transcripts.
    Used both as the selection objective E_cov and as the evaluation coverage metric; if these similarities do not reflect true information retention, the coverage claims collapse.
  • domain assumption VoiceCraft is stable enough to edit speech without introducing noticeable artifacts.
    The paper's own limitations (Section 7.2) state VoiceCraft has low fidelity and can drop or distort words; the exploratory study found audible cuts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TalkLess: Blending Extractive and Abstractive Speech Summarization for Editing Speech to Preserve Content and Style." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HACSNA76

@misc{pith2026250715202,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TalkLess: Blending Extractive and Abstractive Speech Summarization for Editing Speech to Preserve Content and Style},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HACSNA76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15202}
}
read the original abstract

Millions of people listen to podcasts, audio stories, and lectures, but editing speech remains tedious and time-consuming. Creators remove unnecessary words, cut tangential discussions, and even re-record speech to make recordings concise and engaging. Prior work automatically summarized speech by removing full sentences (extraction), but rigid extraction limits expressivity. AI tools can summarize then re-synthesize speech (abstraction), but abstraction strips the speaker's style. We present TalkLess, a system that flexibly combines extraction and abstraction to condense speech while preserving its content and style. To edit speech, TalkLess first generates possible transcript edits, selects edits to maximize compression, coverage, and audio quality, then uses a speech editing model to translate transcript edits into audio edits. TalkLess's interface provides creators control over automated edits by separating low-level wording edits (via the compression pane) from major content edits (via the outline pane). TalkLess achieves higher coverage and removes more speech errors than a state-of-the-art extractive approach. A comparison study (N=12) showed that TalkLess significantly decreased cognitive load and editing effort in speech editing. We further demonstrate TalkLess's potential in an exploratory study (N=3) where creators edited their own speech.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15202 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TalkLess’s interface lets creators edit their speech by skimming and browsing the outline pane to determine regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A speech snippet displayed in all three views within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TalkLess takes an original audio and a target compression ratio as input. TalkLess first transcribes and aligns the audio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Speech Disfluencies and Coherence Errors. Dotted lines represent filler words and repetition counts.     [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between coverage for each compres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Human preferences. The numbers represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Participant ratings for questions selected from Creativity Support Index, System Usability Scale, and NASA TLX for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Users spent significantly more time on the Edit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Extractive and abstractive speech editing creates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: We extended TalkLess to also preserve emphasized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cosine style similarities between abstractive, Talk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Interaction Behavior Overview [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Baseline interface used in our user evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sherif Abdulatif, Ruizhe Cao, and Bin Yang. 2024. Cmgan: Conformer-based metric-gan for monaural speech enhancement. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 32 (2024), 2477–2493

    2024

  2. [2]

    Adobe. 2025. Adobe Audition. https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/audition. html Accessed: 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Alitu. 2025. Alitu. https://alitu.com/ Accessed: 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Audacity. 2025. Audacity. https://www.audacityteam.org/ Accessed: 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Tal August, Lucy Lu Wang, Jonathan Bragg, Marti A Hearst, Andrew Head, and Kyle Lo. 2023. Paper plain: Making medical research papers approachable to healthcare consumers with natural language processing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 5 (2023), 1–38

    2023

  6. [6]

    Aadit Barua, Karim Benharrak, Meng Chen, Mina Huh, and Amy Pavel. 2025. Lotus: Creating Short Videos From Long Videos With Abstractive and Extractive Summarization. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’25) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 967–981. https://doi.org/10.1145/3708359.3712090

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Chris Baume, Mark D Plumbley, Janko Ćalić, and David Frohlich. 2018. A contextual study of semantic speech editing in radio production. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 115 (2018), 67–80

    2018

  8. [8]

    Karim Benharrak, Tim Zindulka, Florian Lehmann, Hendrik Heuer, and Daniel Buschek. 2024. Writer-defined AI personas for on-demand feedback generation. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2024

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    Floraine Berthouzoz, Wilmot Li, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2012. Tools for placing cuts and transitions in interview video. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–8

    2012

  2. [10]

    J Brooke. 1996. SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry (1996)

    1996

  3. [11]

    Scot Bruce. 2025. Modern American History Zoom Lecture 1. https://youtu.be/ QtN2UihMNi4 Accessed: 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Scot Bruce. 2025. Modern American History Zoom Lecture 2. https://youtu.be/ 5hzV4bBXK_M Accessed: 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Juan Casares, A Chris Long, Brad A Myers, Rishi Bhatnagar, Scott M Stevens, Laura Dabbish, Dan Yocum, and Albert Corbett. 2002. Simplifying video editing using metadata. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and t...

    2002

  6. [14]

    Hakan Ceylan, Rada Mihalcea, Umut Özertem, Elena Lloret, and Manuel Palomar

  7. [15]

    JK Chambers and Peter Trudgill. [n. d.]. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. ([n. d.])

  8. [16]

    Guangyu Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Tao Liu, Xiaoyong Du, and Furu Wei. 2023. Wavmark: Watermarking for audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12770 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Xiang “Anthony” Chen, Chien-Sheng Wu, Lidiya Murakhovs’ ka, Philippe Laban, Tong Niu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2023. Marvista: exploring the design of a human-AI collaborative news reading tool. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction 30, 6 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  10. [18]

    Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the Creativity Support of Digital Tools through the Creativity Support Index. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 21, 4, Article 21 (jun 2014), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2617588

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Yoonseo Choi, Eun Jeong Kang, Seulgi Choi, Min Kyung Lee, and Juho Kim. 2024. Proxona: Leveraging LLM-Driven Personas to Enhance Creators’ Understanding of Their Audience. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10937 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Liam Cripwell, Joël Legrand, and Claire Gardent. 2023. Document-Level Plan- ning for Text Simplification. In Conference of the European Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 258378147

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hai Dang, Karim Benharrak, Florian Lehmann, and Daniel Buschek. 2022. Be- yond Text Generation: Supporting Writers with Continuous Automatic Text Summaries. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User In- terface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST ’22). ...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Descript. 2025. Descript. https://www.descript.com/ Accessed: 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Descript. 2025. Descript Underlord. https://www.descript.com/underlord Accessed: 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    ElevenLabs. 2025. ElevenLabs. https://elevenlabs.io/ Accessed: 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Frederick Erickson. 1978. Howard Giles and Peter F. Powesland. Speech style and social evaluation. London and New York: Academic Press, 1975. Pp. 218. Language in Society 7, 3 (1978), 428–433

    1978

  18. [26]

    Lisa A Fast and David C Funder. 2008. Personality as manifest in word use: correlations with self-report, acquaintance report, and behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology 94, 2 (2008), 334

    2008

  19. [27]

    Katja Filippova, Enrique Alfonseca, Carlos A Colmenares, Łukasz Kaiser, and Oriol Vinyals. 2015. Sentence compression by deletion with lstms. InProceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing . 360– 368

    2015

  20. [28]

    C Ailie Fraser, Joy O Kim, Hijung Valentina Shin, Joel Brandt, and Mira Dontcheva. 2020. Temporal segmentation of creative live streams. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2020

  21. [29]

    Ohad Fried, Ayush Tewari, Michael Zollhöfer, Adam Finkelstein, Eli Shechtman, Dan B Goldman, Kyle Genova, Zeyu Jin, Christian Theobalt, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2019. Text-based editing of talking-head video. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 4 (2019), 1–14

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sadaoki Furui, Tomonori Kikuchi, Yosuke Shinnaka, and Chiori Hori. 2004. Speech-to-text and speech-to-speech summarization of spontaneous speech. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 12, 4 (2004), 401–408

    2004

  23. [31]

    Sebastian Gehrmann, Yuntian Deng, and Alexander M Rush. 2018. Bottom-up abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.10792 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Azin Ghazimatin, Ekaterina Garmash, Gustavo Penha, Kristen Sheets, Mar- tin Achenbach, Oguz Semerci, Remi Galvez, Marcus Tannenberg, Sahitya Mantravadi, Divya Narayanan, et al . 2024. PODTILE: Facilitating Podcast Episode Browsing with Auto-generated Chapters. InProceedings of...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Howard Giles, Anthony Mulac, James J Bradac, and Patricia Johnson. 2012. Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. In Communication yearbook 10. Routledge, 13–48

    2012

  26. [34]

    Nianlong Gu, Elliott Ash, and Richard HR Hahnloser. 2021. MemSum: Extractive summarization of long documents using multi-step episodic Markov decision processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08929 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ziwei Gu, Ian Arawjo, Kenneth Li, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, and Elena L Glass- man. 2024. An AI-Resilient Text Rendering Technique for Reading and Skimming Documents. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    2024

  28. [36]

    Som Gupta and Sanjai Kumar Gupta. 2019. Abstractive summarization: An overview of the state of the art. Expert Systems with Applications 121 (2019), 49–65

    2019

  29. [37]

    Michael Gygli, Helmut Grabner, Hayko Riemenschneider, and Luc Van Gool

  30. [38]

    Hart and Lowell E

    Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Human Mental Workload, Peter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati (Eds.). Advances in Psychology, Vol. 52. North-Holland, 139–183. https://doi...

    1988 doi

  31. [39]

    Bernd Huber, Hijung Valentina Shin, Bryan Russell, Oliver Wang, and Gautham J Mysore. 2019. B-script: Transcript-based b-roll video editing with recommenda- tions. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11

    2019

  32. [40]

    huggingface. 2025. all-mpnet-base-v2. https://huggingface.co/sentence- transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2 Accessed: 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Mina Huh, Saelyne Yang, Yi-Hao Peng, Xiang’Anthony’ Chen, Young-Ho Kim, and Amy Pavel. 2023. Avscript: Accessible video editing with audio-visual scripts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2023

  34. [42]

    Yu-Kai Hung, Yun-Chien Huang, Ting-Yu Su, Yen-Ting Lin, Lung-Pan Cheng, Bryan Wang, and Shao-Hua Sun. 2025. SimTube: Simulating Audience Feedback on Videos using Generative AI and User Personas. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces...

    2025

  35. [43]

    Haojian Jin, Yale Song, and Koji Yatani. 2017. Elasticplay: Interactive video summarization with dynamic time budgets. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia . 1164–1172

    2017

  36. [44]

    Mysore, Stephen Diverdi, Jingwan Lu, and Adam Finkel- stein

    Zeyu Jin, Gautham J. Mysore, Stephen Diverdi, Jingwan Lu, and Adam Finkel- stein. 2017. VoCo: text-based insertion and replacement in audio narration. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 4, Article 96 (July 2017), 13 pages. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3072959.3073702

    2017

  37. [45]

    Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin. 2024. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition with Language Models (3rd ed.). https://web.stanford.edu/ ~jurafsky/slp3/ Online manuscript released Aug...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Ashkan Kazemi, Zehua Li, Verónica Pérez-Rosas, and Rada Mihalcea. 2021. Extractive and abstractive explanations for fact-checking and evaluation of news. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.12918 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ambika Kirkland, Joakim Gustafson, and Eva Szekely. 2023. Pardon my disflu- ency: The impact of disfluency effects on the perception of speaker competence and confidence. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH . 5217–5221

    2023

  40. [48]

    Lev Konstantinovskiy, Oliver Price, Mevan Babakar, and Arkaitz Zubiaga. 2021. Toward Automated Factchecking: Developing an Annotation Schema and Bench- mark for Consistent Automated Claim Detection. Digital Threats 2, 2, Article 14 (April 2021), 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    NE Kriman. 2024. Measuring text summarization factuality using atomic facts entailment metrics in the context of retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15171 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Philippe Laban, Jesse Vig, Marti Hearst, Caiming Xiong, and Chien-Sheng Wu

  43. [51]

    Adobe Labs. 2023. Project Blink. https://labs.adobe.com/projects/blink/ AI- powered video editing tool

    2023

  44. [52]

    Charlyn M Laserna, Yi-Tai Seih, and James W Pennebaker. 2014. Um... who like says you know: Filler word use as a function of age, gender, and personality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33, 3 (2014), 328–338

    2014

  45. [53]

    Mackenzie Leake and Wilmot Li. 2024. ChunkyEdit: Text-first video interview editing via chunking. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2024

  46. [54]

    Daniel Li, Thomas Chen, Albert Tung, and Lydia B Chilton. 2021. Hierarchical summarization for longform spoken dialog. InThe 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 582–597

    2021

  47. [55]

    Daniel Li, Thomas Chen, Albert Tung, and Lydia B Chilton. 2021. Hierar- chical Summarization for Longform Spoken Dialog. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    2021

  48. [56]

    Chin-Yew Lin and Eduard Hovy. 2003. The potential and limitations of automatic sentence extraction for summarization. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 Text Summarization Workshop. 73–80

    2003

  49. [57]

    Hui Lin and Vincent Ng. 2019. Abstractive summarization: A survey of the state of the art. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 33. 9815–9822

    2019

  50. [58]

    Susan Lin, Jeremy Warner, JD Zamfirescu-Pereira, Matthew G Lee, Sauhard Jain, Shanqing Cai, Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn, Michael Xuelin Huang, Shumin Zhai, Björn Hartmann, et al. 2024. Rambler: Supporting Writing With Speech via LLM-Assisted Gist Manipulation. In Proceedings of...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Yang Liu. 2019. Fine-tune BERT for Extractive Summarization. ArXiv abs/1903.10318 (2019). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:85500417

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    lowerquality. 2025. lowerquality/gentle. https://github.com/lowerquality/gentle Accessed: 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    Shih-Hao Lu, Huyen Thi Thanh Tran, and Thanh-Sang Ngo. 2025. Are we ready for artificial intelligence voice advertising? Comparing human and artificial intelligence voices in audio advertising in a multitasking context. Quality & Quantity 59, Suppl 1 (2025), 1–22

    2025

  54. [62]

    Hannah Mieczkowski, Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, Malte Jung, and Jess Hohenstein. 2021. AI-mediated communication: Language use and interpersonal effects in a referential communication task. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–14

    2021

  55. [63]

    Max Morrison, Pranav Pawar, Nathan Pruyne, Jennifer Cole, and Bryan Pardo

  56. [64]

    Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Caglar Gulcehre, Bing Xiang, et al. 2016. Ab- stractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence rnns and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06023 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Ani Nenkova, Kathleen McKeown, et al. 2011. Automatic summarization. Foun- dations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 5, 2–3 (2011), 103–233

    2011

  58. [66]

    OpenAI. 2025. OpenAI API. https://platform.openai.com Accessed: 2025

    2025

  59. [67]

    In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Crowdsourced and automatic speech prominence estimation. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 12281–12285

    2024

  60. [68]

    Amy Pavel, Colorado Reed, Björn Hartmann, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2014. Video digests: a browsable, skimmable format for informational lecture videos.. In UIST, Vol. 10. Citeseer, 2642918–2647400

    2014

  61. [69]

    Amy Pavel, Gabriel Reyes, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2020. Rescribe: Authoring and automatically editing audio descriptions. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 747–759

    2020

  62. [70]

    Puyuan Peng, Po-Yao Huang, Daniel Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and David Harwath. 2024. VoiceCraft: Zero-Shot Speech Editing and Text-to-Speech in the Wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16973 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Rev.AI. 2025. rev.ai. https://www.rev.ai/ Accessed: 2025

    2025

  65. [73]

    Emma Rodero, Robert F Potter, and Pilar Prieto. 2017. Pitch range variations improve cognitive processing of audio messages.Human communication research 43, 3 (2017), 397–413

    2017

  66. [74]

    Victor Rosi, Emma Soopramanien, and Carolyn McGettigan. 2025. Perception and social evaluation of cloned and recorded voices: Effects of familiarity and self-relevance. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 4 (2025), 100143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100143

    2025

  67. [75]

    Podcastle. 2025. Podcastle. https://podcastle.ai/ Accessed: 2025

    2025

  68. [76]

    Steve Rubin, Floraine Berthouzoz, Gautham J Mysore, Wilmot Li, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2013. Content-based tools for editing audio stories. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology . 113–122

    2013

  69. [77]

    F. H. Sanford. 1942. Speech and personality. Psychological Bulletin 39, 10 (1942), 811–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060838 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association

    1942 doi

  70. [78]

    Edward Sapir. 1927. Speech as a Personality Trait. Amer. J. Sociology 32 (1927), 892 – 905. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144173316

    1927

  71. [79]

    Steve Rubin, Floraine Berthouzoz, Gautham J Mysore, and Maneesh Agrawala

  72. [80]

    Joan Serrà, Santiago Pascual, Jordi Pons, R Oguz Araz, and Davide Scaini. 2022. Universal speech enhancement with score-based diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03065 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Guokan Shang, Wensi Ding, Zekun Zhang, Antoine Jean-Pierre Tixier, Polykar- pos Meladianos, Michalis Vazirgiannis, and Jean-Pierre Lorré. 2018. Unsuper- vised abstractive meeting summarization with multi-sentence compression and budgeted submodular maximization. arXiv preprint...

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Hijung Valentina Shin, Wilmot Li, and Frédo Durand. 2016. Dynamic authoring of audio with linked scripts. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 509–516

    2016

  75. [83]

    Mohamed R Shoaib, Zefan Wang, Milad Taleby Ahvanooey, and Jun Zhao

  76. [84]

    Björn Schuller and Anton Batliner. 2013. Computational paralinguistics: emotion, affect and personality in speech and language processing . John Wiley & Sons

    2013

  77. [85]

    Rajka Smiljanić and Ann R Bradlow. 2009. Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Language and linguistics compass 3, 1 (2009), 236–264

    2009

  78. [86]

    Yale Song, Jordi Vallmitjana, Amanda Stent, and Alejandro Jaimes. 2015. Tvsum: Summarizing web videos using titles. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 5179–5187

    2015

  79. [87]

    Eliza Strickland. 2024. This Election Year, Look for Content Credentials: Media organizations combat deepfakes and disinformation with digital manifests.IEEE Spectrum 61, 01 (2024), 24–27

    2024

  80. [88]

    Jiaqi Su, Adam Finkelstein, and Zeyu Jin. 2019. Perceptually-motivated environment-specific speech enhancement. In ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 7015–7019

    2019

  81. [89]

    Jiaqi Su, Zeyu Jin, and Adam Finkelstein. 2021. HiFi-GAN-2: Studio-quality speech enhancement via generative adversarial networks conditioned on acous- tic features. In 2021 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (W ASPAA). IEEE, 166–170

    2021

  82. [90]

    slowkow. 2025. slowkow/needleman-wunsch.py. https://gist.github.com/ slowkow/06c6dba9180d013dfd82bec217d22eb5 Accessed: 2025

    2025

  83. [91]

    Anh Truong and Maneesh Agrawala. 2019. A Tool for Navigating and Editing 360 Video of Social Conversations into Shareable Highlights.. In Graphics Interface. 14–1

    2019

  84. [92]

    Anh Truong, Peggy Chi, David Salesin, Irfan Essa, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2021. Automatic generation of two-level hierarchical tutorials from instructional makeup videos. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2021

  85. [93]

    Ba Tu Truong and Svetha Venkatesh. 2007. Video abstraction: A systematic review and classification. ACM transactions on multimedia computing, commu- nications, and applications (TOMM) 3, 1 (2007), 3–es

    2007

  86. [94]

    u/HighReps. 2022. How long does it take you to edit an episode? https://www.reddit.com/r/podcasting/comments/umlxia/how_long_does_it_ take_you_to_edit_an_episode/ Reddit post in r/podcasting

    2022

  87. [95]

    Bryan Wang, Zeyu Jin, and Gautham Mysore. 2022. Record Once, Post Every- where: Automatic Shortening of Audio Stories for Social Media. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–11

    2022

  88. [96]

    Liyan Tang, Philippe Laban, and Greg Durrett. 2024. MiniCheck: Efficient Fact- Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10774 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Anna Wegmann, Marijn Schraagen, and Dong Nguyen. 2022. Same author or just same topic? towards content-independent style representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04907 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Theodora Worledge, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Carlos Guestrin. 2024. The Extractive-Abstractive Spectrum: Uncovering Verifiability Trade-offs in LLM Generations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17375 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Tal Yarkoni. 2010. Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of Research in Personality 44, UIST ’25, September 28-October 1, 2025, Busan, Republic of Korea Benharrak, et al. 3 (2010), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2010 doi

  92. [100]

    Haopeng Zhang, Xiao Liu, and Jiawei Zhang. 2023. Extractive Summarization via ChatGPT for Faithful Summary Generation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 258048787

    2023

  93. [101]

    Shiyue Zhang, David Wan, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Extractive is not faithful: An investigation of broad unfaithfulness problems in extractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03549 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Sitong Wang, Zheng Ning, Anh Truong, Mira Dontcheva, Dingzeyu Li, and Lydia B Chilton. 2024. PodReels: Human-AI Co-Creation of Video Podcast Teasers. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 958–974

    2024

  95. [103]

    role ":

    Yang Zhong, Chao Jiang, Wei Xu, and Junyi Jessy Li. 2020. Discourse level factors for sentence deletion in text simplification. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 34. 9709–9716. A APPENDIX A.1 Prompt Templates A.1.1 Prompt Template for Gene...

    2020

  96. [108]

    Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, et al. 2021. QMSum: A new benchmark for query-based multi-domain meeting summariza- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05938 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  97. [110]

    ** No New Words **: Do not add any new words that are not already in the transcript , besides when merging sentences

  98. [111]

    ** Same Wording **: Do not change the original wording

  99. [112]

    ** Include Everything **: Ensure that no piece of information from the original transcript is left out

  100. [113]

    um " and

    ** Remove Filler Words **: Eliminate all filler words like " um " and " uh ."

  101. [114]

    ** Preserve Style **: Keep the original language style intact ; don ' t change the tone or formal / informal nature of the language

  102. [115]

    ** Remove Repetitions **: Delete any repeated information to avoid redundancies

  103. [116]

    ** Unique Words **: Keep unique / rare words as they may aid in memory when listening to the transcript

  104. [117]

    ** No Hyphens or Word Corrections **: Do not combine words using hyphens or introduce hyphens and do not change a single character of a word to correct it if the word itself would be kept

  105. [118]

    role ":

    ** Target Length **: Ensure the final output is not more than {target_length} words . Your response will not be formatted and will only contain the shortened transcript . ' , } ] , } , ... few - shot examples ... { " role ": " user " , " content ": [ { " type ": " text " , " t...

    2025

  106. [2010]

    In Human language technologies: The 2010 annual conference of the North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    Quantifying the limits and success of extractive summarization systems across domains. In Human language technologies: The 2010 annual conference of the North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics . 903–911

    2010

  107. [2014]

    In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VII 13

    Creating summaries from user videos. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VII 13. Springer, 505–520

    2014

  108. [2015]

    In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology

    Capture-time feedback for recording scripted narration. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology . 191–199

  109. [2023]

    In 2023 international conference on computer and applications (ICCA)

    Deepfakes, misinformation, and disinformation in the era of frontier AI, generative AI, and large AI models. In 2023 international conference on computer and applications (ICCA). IEEE, 1–7

    2023

  110. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Beyond the chat: Executable and verifiable text-editing with llms. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–23

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.