Connecting the dots: Summarizing and Structuring Large Document Collections Using Concept Maps
Concept maps can be used to concisely represent important information and bring structure into large document collections. Therefore, we study a variant of multidocument summarization that produces summaries in the form of concept maps. However, suitable evaluation datasets for this task are currently missing. To close this gap, we present a newly created corpus of concept maps that summarize heterogeneous collections of web documents on educational topics. It was created using a novel crowdsourcing approach that allows us to efficiently determine important elements in large document collections. We release the corpus along with a baseline system and proposed evaluation protocol to enable further research on this variant of summarization.
1 Introduction
Multi-document summarization (MDS), the transformation of a set of documents into a short text containing their most important aspects, is a longstudied problem in NLP. Generated summaries have been shown to support humans dealing with large document collections in information seeking tasks (McKeown et al., 2005; Maña-López et al., 2004; Roussinov and Chen, 2001). However, when exploring a set of documents manually, humans rarely write a fully-formulated summary for themselves. Instead, user studies (Chin et al., 2009; Kang et al., 2011) show that they note down important keywords and phrases, try to identify relationships between them and organize them accordingly. Therefore, we believe that the study of summarization with similarly structured outputs is an important extension of the traditional task.
ACL 2017
long papers
substantial research invites submissions of must describe
Concept Relation Proposition
Figure 1: Elements of a concept map.
A representation more in line with observed user behavior is a concept map (Novak and Gowin, 1984). Concept maps are labeled graphs showing concepts as nodes and relationships between them as edges (Figure 1). Labels can be freely defined. A concept can be an entity, abstract idea, event or activity, designated by a unique label. Good maps should be propositionally coherent, meaning that every relation together with the two connected concepts form a meaningful proposition.
Introduced in 1972 as a teaching tool (Novak and Cañas, 2007), applications in education (Edwards and Fraser, 1983; Roy, 2008), for writing assistance (Villalon, 2012) or to structure information repositories (Briggs et al., 2004; Richardson and Fox, 2005) have been reported. For summarization, concept maps allow to represent a summary concisely and clearly reveal relations. Moreover, we see a second interesting use case beyond the capabilities of textual summaries: When concepts and relations are linked to corresponding locations in the documents, the graph can be used to navigate in a document collection, similar to how a table-of-contents is used in a single document.
The corresponding task that we propose is concept-map-based MDS: Given a set of related documents, create a concept map that represents its most important content, satisfies a specified size limit and is connected. Further, to ease the use of automatic evaluations, we focus on the extractive variant of the task in this work, requiring that all labels have to be taken from the documents.
The proposed task is complex, consisting of several interdependent subtasks. One has to ex-
2
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
students
student loans
cost of their college education
a credit-worthy cosigner sufficient credit history a steady income
private lending institutions
federal student loans
credit check U.S. Department
of Schooling
are offered to
do not have
require a borrower to have
regularly offer
pay for
help students cover
will need to apply with
not requiring
provide a significant financial aid to
offered by
Figure 2: Excerpt from a summary concept map on the topic “students loans without credit history”.
tract appropriate labels for concepts and relations and recognize different expressions that refer to the same concept across multiple documents. Further, one has to select the most important concepts and relations for the summary and finally organize them in a graph satisfying the connectedness and size constraints. In order to develop and evaluate methods for the task, gold-standard corpora are necessary, but no suitable corpus is available. The manual creation of such a dataset is very timeconsuming, as annotators need to perform all subtasks described above. In particular, an annotator would need to manually identify all potential concepts in the documents, while only a few of them will eventually end up in the summary.
To overcome these issues, we developed a corpus creation method that effectively combines automatic preprocessing, scalable crowdsourcing and high-quality expert annotations. Using it, we can avoid the high effort for single annotators, allowing us to scale to document clusters that are 15 times larger than in traditional summarization corpora. In addition, the method includes a novel crowdsourcing scheme, low-context importance annotation, that resolves quality issues observed in previous work (Lloret et al., 2013).
For concept-map-based MDS, we created a new corpus of 30 topics, each with around 40 source documents and a summarizing concept map that is the consensus of many crowdworkers. The document clusters were built from a web crawl, comprising a variety of different genres, text styles and document lengths. Figure 2 shows one example.
To summarize, we make the following contributions: (1) We propose a novel summarization task, concept-map-based MDS, (2) present a new crowdsourcing scheme to create reference summaries, (3) publish a new dataset for the proposed task and (4) provide an evaluation protocol and baseline. These resources are publicly available
under a permissive license. 1
2 Related Work
Some attempts have been made to automatically construct concept maps from text, working with either single documents (Zubrinic et al., 2015; Villalon, 2012; Valerio and Leake, 2006; Kowata et al., 2010) or document clusters (Qasim et al., 2013; Zouaq and Nkambou, 2009; Rajaraman and Tan, 2002). These approaches extract concept and relation labels from syntactic structures and connect them to build a concept map. However, common task definitions and comparable evaluations are missing. In addition, only a few of them, namely Villalon (2012) and Valerio and Leake (2006), define summarization as their goal and try to compress the input to a substantially smaller size. Our newly proposed task and the created large-cluster dataset fill these gaps as they emphasize the summarization aspect of the task.
For the subtask of selecting summary-worthy concepts and relations, techniques developed for traditional summarization (Nenkova and McKeown, 2011) and keyphrase extraction (Hasan and Ng, 2014) are related and applicable. Approaches that build graphs of propositions to create a summary (Fang et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2015; Li, 2015) seem to be particularly related, however, there is one important difference: While they use graphs as an intermediate representation from which a textual summary is then generated, the goal of the proposed task is to create a graph that is directly interpretable and useful for a user.
For traditional summarization, the most wellknown datasets emerged out of the DUC and TAC competitions.2 They provide clusters of news articles with gold-standard summaries that serve as a benchmark to compare different approaches.
1URL hidden, anon. resources are attached for review. 2duc.nist.gov, tac.nist.gov
3
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
Imagine you want to learn something about students loans without credit history. How useful would the following statements be for you?
(P1) students with bad credit history - apply for - federal loans with the FAFSA 2 Extremely Important 2 Very Important 2 Moderately Important 2 Slightly Important 2 Not at all Important
(P2) students - encounter - unforeseen financial emergencies 2 Extremely Important 2 Very Important 2 Moderately Important 2 Slightly Important 2 Not at all Important
Figure 3: Likert-scale crowdsourcing task with topic description and two example propositions.
Extending these efforts, several more specialized corpora have been created: With regard to size, Nakano et al. (2010) present a corpus of summaries for large-scale collections of web pages. Recently, corpora with more heterogeneous documents have been suggested, e.g. (Zopf et al., 2016) and (Benikova et al., 2016). The corpus we present combines these aspects, as it has large clusters of heterogeneous documents, and provides a necessary benchmark to evaluate the proposed task. For concept map generation, one corpus with humancreated summary concept maps for student essays has been created (Villalon et al., 2010). In contrast to our corpus, it only deals with single documents, requires a two orders of magnitude smaller amount of compression and is not publicly available .
Other types of information representation that also model concepts and their relationships are knowledge bases, such as Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2009), and ontologies. However, they both differ in important aspects: Whereas concept maps follow an open label paradigm and are meant to be interpretable by humans, knowledge bases and ontologies are usually more strictly typed and made to be machine-readable. Moreover, approaches to automatically construct them from text typically try to extract as much information as possible, while we want to summarize a document. As a result, approaches from these fields cannot be directly applied. Vice versa, Zouaq et al. (2011) showed that concept maps can be a useful first step to create a domain ontology.
3 Low-Context Importance Annotation
Lloret et al. (2013) describe several experiments to crowdsource reference summaries. Workers are asked to read 10 documents and then select 10 summary sentences from them for a reward of $0.05. They discovered several challenges, including poor work quality and the subjectiveness of the annotation task, indicating that crowdsourcing is not useful for this purpose. To overcome these is-
sues, we introduce a new task design, low-context importance annotation, to determine summaryworthy parts of documents. Compared to Lloret et al.’s approach, it is more in line with crowdsourcing best practices, as the tasks are simple, intuitive and small (Sabou et al., 2014) and workers receive reasonable payment (Fort et al., 2011).
3.1 Task Design
We break the importance annotation down to single propositions. The goal of our crowdsourcing scheme is to obtain a score for each proposition indicating its importance in a document cluster, such that a ranking according to the score would reveal what is most important and should be included in a summary. In contrast to other work, we do not show the documents to the workers at all, but provide only a description of the document cluster’s topic. This ensures that tasks are small, simple and can be done quickly (see Figure 3). In preliminary tests, we found that this design, despite the minimal context, works reasonably well as long as the topic is something the worker can relate to. For instance, consider Figure 3: One can easily say that P1 is more important than P2 without reading the documents. We distinguish two task variants:
Likert-scale Tasks Instead of enforcing binary importance decisions, we use a 5-point Likertscale to allow more fine-grained annotations. The obtained labels are translated into scores (5..1) and the average of all scores for a proposition is used as an estimate for its importance. This follows the idea that while single workers might find the task subjective, the consensus of multiple workers, represented in the average score, tends to be less subjective due to the “wisdom of the crowd”. We randomly group five propositions into a task.
Comparison Tasks As an alternative, we use a second task design based on pairwise comparisons. Comparisons are known to be easier to make and more consistent (Belz and Kow, 2010),
4
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
but also more expensive, as the number of pairs grows quadratically with the number of objects.3 To reduce the cost, we group five propositions into a task and ask workers to order them by importance per drag-and-drop. From the results, we derive pairwise comparisons and use TrueSkill (Herbrich et al., 2007), a powerful Bayesian rank induction model (Zhang et al., 2016), to obtain importance estimates for each proposition.
3.2 Pilot Study
To verify the proposed approach, we conducted a pilot study on Amazon Mechanical Turk using data from TAC2008 (Dang and Owczarzak, 2008). We collected importance estimates for 474 propositions extracted from the first three clusters4 using both task designs. Each Likert-scale task was assigned to 5 different workers and awarded $0.06. For comparison tasks, we also collected 5 labels each, paid $0.05 and sampled around 7% of all possible pairs. We submitted them in batches of 100 pairs and selected pairs for subsequent batches based on the confidence of the TrueSkill model.
Quality Control Following the observations of Lloret et al. (2013), we established several measures for quality control. First, we restricted our tasks to workers from the US with an approval rate of at least 95%. Second, we identified low quality workers by measuring the correlation of each worker’s Likert-scores with the average of the other four scores. The worst workers (at most 5% of all labels) were removed. In addition, we included trap sentences, similar as in (Lloret et al., 2013), in around 80 of the tasks. In contrast to Lloret et al.’s findings, both an obvious trap sentence (This sentence is not important) and a less obvious but unimportant one (Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law) were consistently labeled as unimportant (1.08 and 1.14), indicating that the workers paid attention to the task.
Agreement and Reliability For Likert-scale tasks, we follow Snow et al. (2008) and calculate agreement as the average Pearson correlation of a worker’s Likert-score with the average score of the remaining workers.5 This measure is less
3Even with intelligent sampling strategies, such as the active learning in CrowdBT (Chen et al., 2013), the number of pairs is only reduced by a constant factor (Zhang et al., 2016).
4D0801A-A, D0802A-A, D0803A-A 5As workers are not consistent across all items, we create
five meta-workers by sorting the labels per proposition.
strict than exact label agreement and can account for close labels and high- or low-scoring workers. We observe a correlation of 0.81, indicating substantial agreement. For comparisons, the majority agreement is 0.73. To further examine the reliability of the collected data, we followed the approach of Kiritchenko and Mohammed (2016) and simply repeated the crowdsourcing for one of the three topics. Between the importance estimates calculated from the first and second run, we found a Pearson correlation of 0.82 (Spearman 0.78) for Likert-scale tasks and 0.69 (Spearman 0.66) for comparison tasks. This shows that the approach, despite the high subjectiveness of the task, allows us to collect reliable annotations.
Peer Evaluation In addition to the reliability studies, we extrinsically evaluated the annotations in the task of summary evaluation. For each of the 58 peer summaries in TAC2008, we calculated a score as the sum of the importance estimates of the propositions it contains. Table 1 shows how these peer scores, averaged over the three topics, correlate with the manual responsiveness scores assigned during TAC in comparison to ROUGE-2 and Pyramid scores.6 The results demonstrate that with both task designs, we obtain importance annotations that are similarly useful for summary evaluation as pyramid annotations or gold-standard summaries (used for ROUGE).
Conclusion Based on the pilot study results, we conclude that the proposed crowdsourcing scheme allows us to obtain proper annotations for the importance of propositions. Thus, the approach can be used to construct gold-standard summaries, evaluate systems or generate training data.
4 Corpus Creation
To carry out comparable evaluations, the proposed task requires a gold-standard corpus. We
6Correlations for ROUGE and Pyramid are lower than reported in TAC since we only use 3 topics instead of all 48.
5
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
Proposition Extraction
Proposition Filtering
Importance Annotation
Proposition Revision
Concept Map Construction
§4.2 §4.3 §4.4 §4.5 §4.6
Figure 4: Steps of the corpus creation (with references to the corresponding sections).
present our corpus construction process, outlined in Figure 4, that combines automatic preprocessing, scalable crowdsourcing and high-quality expert annotations to efficiently create such a dataset.
4.1 Source Data
As a starting point, we used the DIP corpus (Habernal et al., 2016), a collection of 49 clusters of 100 web pages on educational topics (e.g. bullying, homeschooling, drugs). It was created from a large web crawl using state-of-the-art information retrieval. Web pages are boilerplate-cleaned, segmented and all sentences have binary labels for topic relevance. For our corpus, we selected 30 of the topics. From the list of 100 ranked web pages per topic, we choose the top-ranked ones that were from distinct websites and had at least one relevant sentence, stopping at 50 documents.
4.2 Proposition Extraction
As concept maps consist of propositions expressing the relation between concepts (see Figure 1), we need to impose such a structure upon the plain text in the document clusters. This could be done by manually annotating spans representing concepts and relations in every sentence, however, the size of our clusters makes this a huge effort: Even if we restrict the annotation to sentences known to be relevant, 2288 sentences per topic (69k in total) need to be processed. Therefore, we resort to an automatic approach for this step.
The Open Information Extraction paradigm (Banko et al., 2007) offers a representation very similar to the desired one. For instance, from
Specifically, eligible students may borrow the Direct Stafford Loans and eligible parents may borrow the Direct PLUS Loan on behalf of their dependent students.
Open IE systems extract tuples of two arguments and a relation phrase representing propositions:
(eligible students, may borrow, Dir. Stafford Loan) (eligible parents, may borrow, Direct PLUS Loan)
While the relation phrase is similar to a relation
in a concept map, many arguments in these tuples represent useful concepts. We used Open IE 47, a state-of-the-art Open IE system (Stanovsky and Dagan, 2016), to process the relevant sentences of all topics. After removing duplicates, we obtained 4137 tuples per topic.
Since we want to create a gold-standard corpus, we have to ensure that we produce high-quality data. We therefore made use of the confidence assigned to every extracted tuple to filter out low quality ones. To ensure that we do not filter too aggressively (and miss important aspects in the final summary), we manually annotated 500 tuples sampled from all topics for correctness. On the first 250 of them, we tuned the filter threshold to 0.5, which keeps 98.7% of the correct extractions in the unseen second half. After filtering, a topic had on average 2850 propositions (85k in total).
4.3 Proposition Filtering
Despite the similarity of the Open IE paradigm, not every extracted tuple is a suitable proposition for a concept map. To reduce the effort in the subsequent steps, we therefore want to filter out unsuitable ones. A tuple is suitable if it (1) is a correct extraction, (2) is meaningful without any context and (3) has arguments that represent proper concepts. To better understand these criteria, we performed a small annotation study.
Based on a set of examples, we created a guideline explaining when to label a tuple as suitable for a concept map. We found tuples to be unsuitable mostly because they had unresolvable pronouns, conflicting with (2), or arguments that were full clauses or propositions, conflicting with (3), while (1) was mostly taken care of by the confidence filtering in §4.2. Three annotators independently labeled a set of 500 randomly sampled tuples. We observed an agreement of 82% (κ = 0.60).
Due to the high number of tuples we decided to automate the filtering step. We trained a linear SVM on the majority voted annotations. As features, we used the extraction confidence, length of arguments and relations as well as part-of-speech
7github.com/knowitall/openie
6
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
tags, among others. To ensure that the automatic classification does not remove suitable propositions, we tuned the classifier to avoid false negatives. In particular, we introduced class weights, improving precision on the negative class at the cost of a higher fraction of positive classifications. Further, we assumed that we can manually verify a certain number of the most uncertain negative classifications. Under these constraints, a model trained on 350 instances achieves 93% precision on negative classifications on the unseen 150 instances, assuming that 20% are manually verified. We found this to be a reasonable trade-off of automation and data quality and applied the model to the full dataset.
The classifier filtered out 43% of the propositions, leaving 1622 per topic. We manually examined the 17k least confident negative classifications and corrected 955 of them. We also corrected positive classifications for certain types of tuples for which we knew the classifier to be imprecise. Finally, each topic was left with an average of 1554 propositions (47k in total).
4.4 Importance Annotation
Given the propositions identified in the previous step, we now applied our crowdsourcing scheme as described in §3 to determine their importance. To cope with the large number of propositions, we combine the two task designs: First, we collect 5 Likert-scores for each proposition, clean the data and calculate averages. Then, using only the top 100 propositions8, we crowdsource 10% of the pairwise comparisons among them. Using TrueSkill, we obtain a fine-grained ranking of the 100 most important propositions. We use the topic descriptions from the underlying DIP corpus.
For Likert-scores, the average agreement over all topics is 0.80, while the majority agreement for comparisons is 0.78. We repeated the data collection for three randomly selected topics and found the Pearson correlation between both runs to be 0.73 (Spearman 0.73) for Likert-scores and 0.72 (Spearman 0.71) for comparisons. These figures show that the crowdsourcing approach works on this dataset as reliably as on the TAC documents.
In total, we uploaded 53k scoring and 12k comparison tasks to Mechanical Turk, spending $4425.45 including fees. From the fine-grained
8We also add all propositions with the same score as the 100th, yielding 112 propositions on average.
ranking of the 100 most important propositions, we select the top 50 per topic to construct a summary concept map in the subsequent steps.
4.5 Proposition Revision
Having a manageable number of propositions per topic, an expert annotator then applied a few straightforward transformations that correct common errors of the Open IE system. First, we break down propositions with conjunctions in either of the arguments into separate propositions per conjunct, which the Open IE system sometimes fails to do. And second, we correct span errors that might occur in the arguments or relation phrase, especially when sentences were not properly segmented. As a result, we have a set of high quality propositions for our concept map, consisting of, due to the first transformation, 56.1 propositions per topic on average.
4.6 Concept Map Construction
In this final step, we connect the set of important propositions to form a graph. For instance, given the following two propositions
(student, may borrow, Stafford Loan) (the student, does not have, a credit history)
one can easily see, although the first arguments differ slightly, that both labels describe the concept student, allowing us to build a concept map with three concepts. The annotation task thus involves deciding which of the available propositions to include in the map, which of their concepts to join and which of the available labels to use. As these decisions highly depend upon each other and require context, we decided to use expert annotators rather than crowdsource the subtasks.
Annotators were given the topic description and the most important, ranked propositions. They could connect them step by step in a simple annotation tool that visualized the map constructed so far. They were instructed to reach a size of 25 concepts, the recommended maximum size for a concept map (Novak and Cañas, 2007). Further, they should prefer more important propositions and ensure connectedness. When connecting two propositions, they were asked to keep the concept label that was appropriate for both propositions. To support the annotator, the tool used ADW (Pilehvar et al., 2013), a state-of-the-art approach for semantic similarity, to suggest possible connections. If
7
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
Corpus Cluster Cluster Size Docs Doc. Size Rel. Std. This work 30 97,880 ± 50,086.2 40.5 ± 6.8 2,412.8 ± 3,764.1 1.56 DUC 2006 50 17,461 ± 6,627.8 25.0 ± 0.0 729.2 ± 542.3 0.74 DUC 2004 50 6,721 ± 3,017.9 10.0 ± 0.0 672.1 ± 506.3 0.75 TAC 2008A 48 5,892 ± 2,832.4 10.0 ± 0.0 589.2 ± 480.3 0.82
Table 2: Topic clusters in comparison to classic corpora (size in token, mean with standard deviation).
an annotator was not able to connect 25 concepts, she was allowed to create up to three synthetic relations with freely defined labels, making the maps slightly abstractive. On average, the constructed maps have 0.77 synthetic relations, mostly connecting concepts whose relation is too obvious to be explicitly stated in text (e.g. between Montessori teacher and Montessori education).
To assess the reliability of this annotation step, we had the first three maps created by two annotators. We casted the task of selecting propositions to be included in the map as a binary decision task and observed an agreement of 84% (κ = 0.66). Second, we modeled the decision which concepts to join as a binary decision on all pairs of common concepts, observing an agreement of 95% (κ = 0.70). And finally, we compared which concept labels the annotators decided to include in the final map, observing 85% (κ = 0.69) agreement. Hence, the annotation shows substantial agreement (Landis and Koch, 1977).
5 Corpus Analysis
In this section, we describe our newly created corpus, which, in addition to having summaries in the form of concept maps, differs from traditional summarization corpora in several aspects.
5.1 Document Clusters
Size The corpus consists of document clusters for 30 different topics. Each of them contains around 40 documents with on average 2413 tokens, which leads to an average cluster size of 97,880 token. With these characteristics, the document clusters are 15 times larger than typical DUC clusters of ten documents and five times larger than the 25-document-clusters (Table 2). In addition, the documents are also more variable in terms of length, as the (length-adjusted) standard deviation is twice as high as in the other corpora.
Genres Because we used a large web crawl as the source for our corpus, it contains docu-
per Map Token Character Concepts 25.0± 0.0 3.2± 0.5 22.0± 4.1 Relations 25.2± 1.3 3.2± 0.5 17.1± 2.6
Table 3: Size of concept maps (mean with std).
ments from a variety of genres. To further analyze this property, we categorized a sample of 50 documents from the corpus. Among them, we found professionally written articles and blog posts (28%), educational material for parents and kids (26%), personal blog posts (16%), forum discussions and comments (12%), commented link collections (12%) and scientific articles (6%). Systems summarizing the corpus can therefore not rely on genre-specific characteristics and have to deal with the full variety of text types.
Textual Heterogeneity In addition to the variety of genres, the documents also differ in terms of language use. To capture this property, we follow Zopf et al. (2016) and compute, for every topic, the average Jensen-Shannon divergence between the word distribution of one document and the word distribution in the remaining documents. The higher this value is, the more the language differs between documents. We found the average divergence over all topics to be 0.3490, whereas it is 0.3019 in DUC 2004 and 0.3188 in TAC 2008A.
5.2 Concept Maps
As Table 3 shows, each of the 30 reference concept maps has exactly 25 concepts and between 24 and 28 relations. Labels for both concepts and relations consist on average of 3.2 tokens, whereas the latter are a bit shorter in characters.
To obtain a better picture of what kind of text spans have been used as labels, we automatically tagged them with their part-of-speech and determined their head with a dependency parser. Concept labels tend to be headed by nouns (82%) or verbs (15%), while they also contain adjectives, prepositions and determiners. Relation labels, on
8
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
the other hand, are almost always headed by a verb (94%) and contain prepositions, nouns and particles in addition. These distributions are very similar to those reported by Villalon et al. (2010) for their (single-document) concept map corpus.
Analyzing the graph structure of the maps, we found that all of them are connected. They have on average 7.2 central concepts with more than one relation, while the remaining ones occur in only one proposition. During the annotation, we found that achieving a higher number of connections would mean compromising importance, i.e. including less important propositions, and we decided against it. For experiments, we provide a split into 15 topics each for training and testing.
6 Baseline Experiments
In this section, we briefly describe a baseline and evaluation scripts that we release, with a detailed documentation, along with the corpus.
Baseline Method We implemented a simple approach inspired by previous work on concept map generation and keyphrase extraction. For a document cluster, it performs the following steps:
1. Extract all NPs as potential concepts.
2. Merge potential concepts whose labels match after stemming into a single concept.
3. For each pair of concepts co-occurring in a sentence, select the tokens in between as a potential relation if they contain a verb.
4. If a pair of concepts has more than one relation, select the one with the shortest label.
5. Rank all concepts by importance.
6. Connect concepts to a graph of 25 concepts.
For (5), we trained a binary classifier to identify the important concepts in the set of all potential concepts. We used common features for keyphrase extraction, including position, frequency and length, and Weka’s Random Forest (Hall et al., 2009). At inference time, the classifier provides an importance score for each concept. In (6), we start with the full graph of all extracted concepts and relations and use a heuristic to find a subgraph that is connected, satisfies the size limit of 25 concepts and has many high-scoring concepts: We iteratively remove the weakest concept until only one connected component of 25 concepts or less remains, which is the final concept map.
Evaluation Metrics In order to automatically compare generated concept maps with reference maps, we propose three metrics.9 As a concept map is fully defined by the set of its propositions, we can compute precision, recall and F1scores between the two sets, with propositions represented as the concatenation of concept and relation labels. Strict Match compares them after stemming and only counts complete matches. Using METEOR (Denkowski and Lavie, 2014), we offer a second metric that takes synonyms and paraphrases into account and also scores partial matches. And finally, we compute ROUGE-2 (Lin, 2004) between the concatenation of all propositions from the maps. These automatic measures might be complemented with a human evaluation.
Results Table 4 shows the performance of the baseline. An analysis of the single pipeline steps revealed major bottlenecks of the method and challenges of the task. First, we observed that around 76% of gold concepts are covered with the extraction (step 1+2), while the top 25 concepts (step 5) only contain 17%. Hence, content selection is a major challenge, stemming from the large cluster sizes. Second, while also 17% of gold concepts are contained in the final maps (step 6), scores for strict proposition matching are low, indicating a poor performance of the relation extraction (step 3). The propagation of these errors along the pipeline contributes to overall low scores.
7 Conclusion
In this work, we presented low-context importance annotation, a novel crowdsourcing scheme that we used to create a new benchmark corpus for concept-map-based MDS. The corpus has largescale document clusters of heterogeneous web documents, posing a challenging summarization task. Together with the corpus, we provide implementations of a baseline method and evaluation scripts and hope that our efforts facilitate future research on this variant of summarization.
9For exact definitions, see the published scripts and docs.
9
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
- Strengths:  Detailed guidelines and explicit illustrations.  - Weaknesses:  The document-independent crowdsourcing annotation is unreliable.   - General Discussion:  This work creates a new benchmark corpus for concept-map-based MDS. It is well organized and written clearly. The supplement materials are sufficient. I have two questions here. 1)              Is it necessary to treat concept map extraction as a separate task? On the one hand, many generic summarization systems build a similar knowledge graph and then generate summaries accordingly. On the other hand, with the increase of the node number, the concept map becomes growing hard to distinguish. Thus, the general summaries should be more readable. 2)              How can you determine the importance of a concept independent of the documents? The definition of summarization is to reserve the main concepts of documents. Therefore, the importance of a concept highly depends on the documents. For example, in the given topic of coal mining accidents, assume there are two concepts: A) an instance of coal mining accidents and B) a cause of coal mining accidents. Then, if the document describes a series of coal mining accidents, A is more important than B. In comparison, if the document explores why coal mining accidents happen, B is more significant than A. Therefore, just given the topic and two concepts A&B, it is impossible to judge their relative importance.  I appreciate the great effort spent by authors to build this dataset. However, this dataset is more like a knowledge graph based on common sense rather than summary.