Selective Encoding for Abstractive Sentence Summarization
We propose a selective encoding model to extend the sequence-to-sequence framework for abstractive sentence summarization. It consists of a sentence encoder, a selective gate network, and an attention equipped decoder. The sentence encoder and decoder are built with recurrent neural networks. The selective gate network constructs a second level sentence representation by controlling the information flow from encoder to decoder. The second level representation is tailored for sentence summarization task, which leads to better performance. We evaluate our model on the English Gigaword, DUC 2004 and MSR abstractive sentence summarization datasets. The experimental results show that the proposed selective encoding model outperforms the state-ofthe-art baseline models.
1 Introduction
Sentence summarization aims to shorten a given sentence and produce a brief summary of it. This is different from document level summarization task since it is hard to apply existing techniques in extractive methods, such as extracting sentence level features and ranking sentences. Early works propose using rule-based methods (Zajic et al., 2007), syntactic tree pruning methods (Knight and Marcu, 2002), statistical machine translation techniques (Banko et al., 2000) and so on for this task. We focus on abstractive sentence summarization task in this paper.
Recently, neural network models have been applied in this task. Rush et al. (2015) use autoconstructed sentence-headline pairs to train a neural network summarization model. They use a
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) encoder and feed-forward neural network language model decoder for this task. Chopra et al. (2016) extend their work by replacing the decoder with Recurrent Neural Network (RNN). Nallapati et al. (2016) follow this line and change the encoder to RNN to make it a full RNN based sequence-tosequence model (Sutskever et al., 2014).
All the above works fall into the encodingdecoding paradigm, which first encodes the input sentence to an abstract representation and then decodes the intended output sentence based on the encoded information. As an extension of the encoding-decoding framework, attentionbased approach (Bahdanau et al., 2015) has been broadly used: the encoder produces a list of vectors for all tokens in the input, and the decoder uses an attention mechanism to dynamically extract encoded information and align with the output tokens. This approach achieves huge success in tasks like neural machine translation, where alignment between all parts of the input and output are required. However, in abstractive sentence summarization, there is no explicit alignment relationship between input sentence and the summary except for the extracted common words. The
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
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
challenge here is not to infer the alignment, but to select the highlights while filtering out secondary information in the input. A desired work-flow for abstractive sentence summarization is encoding, selection, and decoding. After selecting the important information from an encoded sentence, the decoder produces the output summary using the selected information. For example, in Figure 1, given the input sentence, the summarization system first selects the important information, and then rephrases or paraphrases to produce a well-organized summary. Although this is implicitly modeled in the encoding-decoding framework, we argue that abstractive sentence summarization shall benefit from explicitly modeling this selection process.
In this paper we propose Selective Encoding for Abstractive Sentence Summarization (SEASS). We treat the sentence summarization as a threephase task: encoding, selection, and decoding. It consists of a sentence encoder, a selective gate network, and a summary decoder. First, the sentence encoder reads the input words through an RNN unit to construct the first level sentence representation. Then the selective gate network selects the encoded information to construct the second level sentence representation. The selective mechanism controls the information flow from encoder to decoder by applying a gate network according to the sentence information, which helps improve encoding effectiveness and release the burden of the decoder. Finally, the attention-equipped decoder generates the summary using the second level sentence representation. We conduct experiments on English Gigaword, DUC 2004 and Microsoft Research Abstractive Text Compression test sets. Our SEASS model achieves 17.54 ROUGE-2 F1, 9.56 ROUGE-2 recall and 10.63 ROUGE-2 F1 on these test sets respectively, which improves performance compared to the state-of-the-art methods.
2 Problem Formulation
For sentence summarization, given an input sentence x = (x1, x2, . . . , xn), where n is the sentence length, xi ∈ Vs and Vs is the source vocabulary, the system summarizes x by producing y = (y1, y2, . . . , yl), where l ≤ n is the summary length , yi ∈ Vt and Vt is the target vocabulary.
If |y| ⊆ |x|, which means all words in summary y must appear in given input, we denote this as extractive sentence summarization. If |y| * |x|,
which means not all words in summary come from input sentence, we denote this as abstractive sentence summarization. Table 1 provides an example. We focus on abstracive sentence summarization task in this paper.
3 Model
As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of a sentence encoder using the Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) (Cho et al., 2014), a selective gate network and an attention-equipped GRU decoder. First, the bidirectional GRU encoder reads the input words x = (x1, x2, . . . , xn) and builds its representation (h1, h2, . . . , hn). Then the selective gate selects and filters the word representations according to the sentence meaning representation to produce a tailored sentence word representation for abstractive sentence summarization task. Lastly, the GRU decoder produces the output summary with attention to the tailored representation. In the following sections, we introduce the sentence encoder, the selective mechanism, and the summary decoder respectively.
3.1 Sentence Encoder
The role of the sentence encoder is to read the input sentence and construct the basic sentence representation. Here we employ a bidirectional GRU (BiGRU) as the recurrent unit, where GRU is defined as:
zi = σ(Wz[xi, hi−1]) ri = σ(Wr[xi, hi−1])
h̃i = tanh(Wh[xi, ri hi−1])
hi = (1− zi) hi−1 + zi h̃i
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The BiGRU consists of a forward GRU and a backward GRU. The forward GRU reads the input sentence word embeddings from left to right and gets a sequence of hidden states, (~h1,~h2, . . . ,~hn). The backward GRU reads the input sentence
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
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
𝑥1
ℎ1
𝑥2
ℎ2
𝑥3
ℎ3
𝑥4
ℎ4
𝑥5
ℎ5
𝑥6
ℎ6
ℎ1′ ℎ2′ ℎ3′ ℎ4′ ℎ5′ ℎ6′
ℎ𝑖 𝑠
MLP GRU
Attention
𝑐𝑡−1 𝑠𝑡−1 𝑦𝑡−1
𝑠𝑡
𝑐𝑡
maxout
𝑦𝑡
Selective Gate Network
Encoder
Decoder
softmax
embeddings reversely, from right to left, and results in another sequence of hidden states, ( ~h1, ~h2, . . . , ~hn):
~hi = GRU(xi,~hi−1) ~hi = GRU(xi, ~hi+1)
(5)
(6)
The initial states of the BiGRU are set to zero vectors, i.e., ~h1 = 0 and ~hn = 0. After reading the sentence, the forward and backward hidden states are concatenated, i.e., hi = [~hi; ~hi], to get the basic sentence representation.
3.2 Selective Mechanism
In the sequence-to-sequence machine translation (MT) model, the encoder and decoder are responsible for encoding input sentence information and decoding the sentence representation to generate an output sentence. Some previous works apply this framework to summarization generation tasks. However, abstractive sentence summarization is different from MT in two ways. First, there is no explicit alignment relationship between the input sentence and the output summary except for the common words. Second, summarization task needs to keep the highlights and remove the unnecessary information, while MT needs to keep all information literally.
Herein, we propose a selective mechanism to model the selection process for abstractive sentence summarization. The selective mechanism extends the sequence-to-sequence model by constructing a tailored representation for abstractive sentence summarization task. Concretely, the selective gate network in our model takes two vector
inputs, the sentence word vector hi and the sentence representation vector s. The sentence word vector hi is the output of the BiGRU encoder and represents the meaning and context information of word xi. The sentence vector s is used to represent the meaning of the sentence. For each word xi, the selective gate network generates a gate vector sGatei using hi and s, then the tailored representation is constructed, i.e., h′i.
In detail, we concatenate the last forward hidden state ~hn and backward hidden state ~h1 as the sentence representation s:
s =
[ ~h1
~hn
] (7)
For each time step i, the select gate takes the sentence representation s and BiGRU hidden hi as inputs to compute the select gate sGatei:
sGatei = σ(Wshi +Uss+ b) h′i = hi sGatei (8) (9)
where σ is sigmoid activation function and is element-wise multiplication. After the selective gate network, we obtain another sequence of vectors (h′1, h ′ 2, . . . , h ′ n). This new sequence is then used as the input sentence representation for the decoder to generate the summary.
3.3 Summary Decoder
On top of the sentence encoder and the selective gate network, we use GRU with attention as the decoder to produce the output summary.
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
350
351
352
353
354
355
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
At each decoding time step t, the GRU reads the previous word embedding wt−1 and previous context vector ct−1 as inputs to compute the new hidden state st. To initialize the GRU hidden state, we use a linear layer with the last backward encoder hidden state ~h1 as input:
st = GRU(wt−1, ct−1, st−1)
s0 = tanh(Wd ~h1 + b)
(10)
(11)
The context vector ct for current time step t is computed through the concatenate attention mechanism (Luong et al., 2015), which matches the current decoder state st with each encoder hidden state h′i to get an importance score. The importance scores are then normalized to get the current context vector by weighted sum:
et,i = v > a tanh(Wast−1 +Uah ′ i) αt,i = exp(et,i)∑n i=1 exp(et,i)
ct = n∑
i=1
αt,ih ′ i
(12)
(13)
(14)
We then combine the previous word embedding wt−1, the current context vector ct, and the decoder state st to construct the readout state rt. The readout state is then passed through a maxout hidden layer (Goodfellow et al., 2013) to predict the next word with a softmax layer over the decoder vocabulary.
rt = Wrwt−1 +Urct +Vrst
mt = [max{rt,2j−1, rt,2j}]>j=1,...,d p(yt|y1, . . . , yt−1) = softmax(Womt)
(15)
(16)
(17)
where rt is a 2d-dimensional vector.
3.4 Objective Function
Our goal is to maximize the output summary probability given the input sentence. Therefore, we optimize the negative log-likelihood loss function:
J(θ) = − 1 |D| ∑ (x,y)∈D log p(y|x) (18)
where D denotes a set of parallel sentencesummary pairs and θ is the model parameter. We use Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) with minibatch to learn the model parameter θ.
4 Experiments
In this section we introduce the dataset we use, the evaluation metric, the implementation details, the baselines we compare to, and the performance of our system.
4.1 Dataset
Training Set For our training set, we use a parallel corpus which is constructed from the Annotated English Gigaword dataset (Napoles et al., 2012) as mentioned in Rush et al. (2015). The parallel corpus is produced by pairing the first sentence and the headline in the news article with some heuristic rules. We use the script1 released by Rush et al. (2015) to pre-process and extract the training and development datasets. The script performs various basic text normalization, including PTB tokenization, lower-casing, replacing all digit characters with #, and replacing word types seen less than 5 times with 〈unk〉. The extracted corpus contains about 3.8M sentence-summary pairs for the training set and 189K examples for the development set.
For our test set, we use the English Gigaword, DUC 2004, and Microsoft Research Abstractive Text Compression test sets.
English Gigaword Test Set We randomly sample 8000 pairs from the extracted development set as our development set since it is relatively large. For the test set, we use the same randomly heldout test set of 2000 sentence-summary pairs as Rush et al. (2015).2
We also find that except for the empty titles, this test set has some invalid lines like the input sentence containing only one word. Therefore, we further sample 2000 pairs as our internal test set and release it for future works.
DUC 2004 Test Set We employ DUC 2004 data for tasks 1 & 2 (Over et al., 2007) in our experiments as one of the test sets since it is too small to train a neural network model on. The dataset pairs each document with 4 different human-written reference summaries which are capped at 75 bytes. It has 500 input sentences with each sentence paired with 4 summaries.
1https://github.com/facebook/NAMAS 2Thanks to Rush et al. (2015), we acquired the test set they used. Following Chopra et al. (2016), we remove pairs with empty titles resulting in slightly different accuracy compared to Rush et al. (2015) for their systems. The cleaned test set contains 1951 sentence-summary pairs.
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
MSR-ATC Test Set Toutanova et al. (2016) release a new dataset for sentence summarization task by crowdsourcing. This dataset contains approximately 6,000 source text sentences with multiple manually-created summaries (about 26,000 sentence-summary pairs in total). Toutanova et al. (2016) provide a standard split of the data into training, development, and test sets, with 4,936, 448 and 785 input sentences respectively. Since the training set is too small, we only use the test set as one of our test sets. We denote this dataset as MSR-ATC (Microsoft Research Abstractive Text Compression) test set in the following.
Table 2 summarizes the statistic information of the three datasets we used.
Data Set Giga DUC† MSR†
#(sent) 3.99M 500 785 #(sentWord) 125M 17.8K 29K #(summWord) 33M 20.9K 85.9K #(ref) 1 4 3-5 avgInputLen 31.35 35.56 36.97 avgSummLen 8.23 10.43 25.5
Table 2: Data statistics for the datasets. †DUC 2004 and MSR-ATC are for test purpose only.
4.2 Evaluation Metric
We employ ROUGE (Lin, 2004) as our evaluation metric. ROUGE measures the quality of summary by computing overlapping lexical units, such as unigram, bigram, trigram, and longest common subsequence (LCS). It becomes the standard evaluation metric for DUC shared tasks and popular for summarization evaluation. Following previous work, we use ROUGE-1 (unigram), ROUGE-2 (bigram) and ROUGE-L (LCS) as the evaluation metrics in the reported experimental results.
4.3 Implementation Details
Model Parameters The input and output vocabularies are collected from the training data, which have 119,504 and 68,883 word types respectively. We set the word embedding size to 300 and all GRU hidden state sizes to 512. We use dropout (Srivastava et al., 2014) with probability p = 0.5.
Model Training We initialize model parameters randomly using a Gaussian distribution with Xavier scheme (Glorot and Bengio, 2010). We use a combination of Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015)
and simple SGD as our the optimizing algorithms. The training is separated into two phases, the first phase is optimizing the loss function with Adam and the second is with simple SGD. For the Adam optimizer, we set the learning rate α = 0.001, two momentum parameters β1 = 0.9 and β2 = 0.999 respectively, and = 10−8. We use Adam optimizer until the training perplexity decrease to threshold 50. Then we switch to a simple SGD optimizer with initial learning rate α = 0.5 and halve it for every 300K batches. We also apply gradient clipping (Pascanu et al., 2013) with range [−5, 5] for both Adam and SGD phases. To both speed up the training and converge quickly, we use mini-batch size 64 by grid search.
Beam Search We use beam search to generate multiple summary candidates to get better results. To avoid favoring shorter outputs, we average the ranking score along the beam path by dividing it by the number of generated words. To both decode fast and get better results, we set the beam size to 12 in our experiments.
4.4 Baseline
We compare SEASS model with the following state-of-the-art baselines:
ABS Rush et al. (2015) use a CNN encoder and NNLM decoder to do the sentence summarization task. ABS+ Based on ABS model, Rush et al. (2015) further tune their model using DUC 2003 dataset, which leads to improvements on DUC 2004 test set. CAs2s As an extension of the ABS model, Chopra et al. (2016) use a convolutional attention-based encoder and RNN decoder, which outperforms the ABS model. Feats2s Nallapati et al. (2016) use a full RNN sequence-to-sequence encoder-decoder model and add some features to enhance the encoder, such as POS tag, NER, and so on. Luong-NMT Neural machine translation model of Luong et al. (2015) with two-layer LSTMs for the encoder-decoder with 500 hidden units in each layer implemented in (Chopra et al., 2016). s2s+att We also implement a sequence-tosequence model with attention as our baseline and denote it as “s2s+att”.
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
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
4.5 Results
We report ROUGE F1, ROUGE recall and ROUGE F1 for English Gigaword, DUC 2004 and MSRATC test sets respectively. We use the official ROUGE script (version 1.5.5) 3 to evaluate the summarization quality in our experiments. For English Gigaword4 and MSR-ATC5 test sets, the outputs have different lengths so we evaluate the system with F1 metric. As for the DUC 2004 test set6, the task requires the system to produce a fixed length summary (75 bytes), therefore we employ ROUGE recall as the evaluation metric. To satisfy the length requirement, we decode the output summary to a roughly expected length following Rush et al. (2015).
English Gigaword We acquire the test set from Rush et al. (2015) so we can make fair comparisons to the baselines.
Models RG-1 RG-2 RG-L
ABS (beam)‡ 29.55- 11.32- 26.42- ABS+ (beam)‡ 29.76- 11.88- 26.96- Feats2s (beam)‡ 32.67- 15.59- 30.64- CAs2s (greedy)‡ 33.10- 14.45- 30.25- CAs2s (beam)‡ 33.78- 15.97- 31.15- Luong-NMT (beam)‡ 33.10- 14.45- 30.71- s2s+att (greedy) 33.18- 14.79- 30.80- s2s+att (beam) 34.04- 15.95- 31.68- SEASS (greedy) 35.48 16.50 32.93 SEASS (beam) 36.15 17.54 33.63
Table 3: Full length ROUGE F1 evaluation results on the English Gigaword test set used by Rush et al. (2015). RG in the Table denotes ROUGE. Results with ‡ mark are taken from the corresponding papers. The supper script - indicates that our SEASS model with beam search performs significantly better than it as given by the 95% confidence interval in the official ROUGE script.
In Table 3, we report the ROUGE F1 score of our model and the baseline methods. Our SEASS model with beam search outperforms all baseline models by a large margin. Even for greedy search, our model still performs better than other methods
3http://www.berouge.com/ 4The ROUGE evaluation option is the same as Rush et al.
(2015), -m -n 2 -w 1.2 5The ROUGE evaluation option is, -m -n 2 -w 1.2 6The ROUGE evaluation option is, -m -b 75 -n 2 -w 1.2
which used beam search. For the popular ROUGE2 metric, our SEASS model achieves 17.54 F1 score and performs better than the previous works. Compared to the ABS model, our model has a 6.22 ROUGE-2 F1 relative gain. Compared to the highest CAs2s baseline, our model achieves 1.75 ROUGE-2 F1 improvement and passes the significant test according to the official ROUGE script.
Table 4 summarizes our results on our internal test set using ROUGE F1 evaluation metrics. The performance on our internal test set is comparable to our development set, which achieves 24.58 ROUGE-2 F1 and outperforms the baselines.
DUC 2004 We evaluate our model using the ROUGE recall score since the reference summaries
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
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
of the DUC 2004 test set are capped at 75 bytes. Therefore, we decode the summary to a fixed length 18 to ensure that the generated summary satisfies the minimum length requirement. As summarized in Table 5, our SEASS outperforms all the baseline methods and achieves 29.21, 9.56 and 25.51 for ROUGE 1, 2 and L recall. Compared to the ABS+ model which is tuned using DUC 2003 data, our model performs significantly better by 1.07 ROUGE-2 recall score and is trained only with English Gigaword sentence-summary data without being tuned using DUC data.
MSR-ATC We report the full length ROUGE F1 score on the MSR-ATC test set in Table 6. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that reports ROUGE metric scores on the MSR-ATC dataset. Note that we only compare our model with ABS since the others are not publicly available. Our SEASS achieves 10.63 ROUGE-2 F1 and outperforms the s2s+att baseline by 1.02 points.
Models RG-1 RG-2 RG-L
ABS (beam) 20.27- 5.26- 17.10- s2s+att (greedy) 15.15- 4.48- 13.62- s2s+att (beam) 22.65- 9.61- 21.39- SEASS (greedy) 19.77 6.44 17.36 SEASS (beam) 25.75 10.63 22.90
Table 6: Full length ROUGE F1 evaluation on MSR-ATC test set. Beam search are used in both the baselines and our method. The supper script - indicates that our SEASS model performs significantly better than it as given by the 95% confidence interval in the official ROUGE script.
5 Discussion
In this section, we first compare the performance of SEASS with the s2s+att baseline model to illustrate that the proposed method succeeds in selecting information and building tailored representation for abstractive sentence summarization. We then analyze selective encoding by visualizing the heat map.
Effectiveness of Selective Encoding We further test the SEASS model with different sentence lengths on English Gigaword test sets, which are merged from the Rush et al. (2015) test set and our internal test set. The length of sentences in the test sets ranges from 10 to 80. We group the sentences
with an interval of 4 and get 18 different groups and we draw the first 14 groups. We find that the performance curve of our SEASS model always appears to be on the top of that of s2s+att with a certain margin. For the groups of 16, 20, 24, 32, 56 and 60, the SEASS model obtains big improvements compared to the s2s+att model. Overall, these improvements on all groups indicate that the selective encoding method benefits the abstractive sentence summarization task.
Saliency Heat Map of Selective Gate Since the output of the selective gate network is a high dimension vector, it is hard to visualize all the gate values. We use the method in Li et al. (2016) to visualize the contribution of the selective gate to the final output, which can be approximated by the first derivative. Given sentence words x with associated output summary y, the trained model associates the pair (x, y) with a score Sy(x). The goal is to decide which gate g associated with x makes the most significant contribution to Sy(x). We approximate the Sy(g) by computing the first-order Taylor expansion
Sy(g) ≈ ∂(Sy)
∂g g + b (19)
We then draw the Euclidean norm of the first derivative of the output y with respect to the selective gate g associated with each input words.
Figure 4 shows an example of the first derivative heat map, in which most of the important words are selected by the selective gate such as “europe”, “slammed”, “unacceptable”, “conditions”,
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
750
751
752
753
754
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
th e co u n ci
l
o f e u ro
p e
's h u m
a n
ri g h ts co m
m is
si o n e r
sl a m
m e d
th u rs
d a y
a s `` u n a cc
e p ta
b le
'' co n d it
io n s
in fr a n ce 's o v e rc
ro w
d e d
a n d d ila
p id
a te
d
ja ils , w h e re so m e # # in m
a te
s
h a v e co m
m it
te d
su ic
id e
th is y e a r .
Figure 4: First derivative heat map of the output with respect to the selective gate. The important words are selected in the input sentence, such as “europe”, “slammed” and “unacceptable”. The output summary of our system is “council of europe slams french prison conditions” and the true summary is “council of europe again slams french prison conditions”.
and “france”. We can observe that the selective gate determines the importance of each word before decoder, which releases the burden of it by providing tailored sentence encoding.
6 Related Work
Abstractive sentence summarization, also known as sentence compression and similar to headline generation, is used to help compress or fuse the selected sentences in extractive document summarization systems since they may inadvertently include unnecessary information. There are some previous methods to solve this task, such as the linguistic rule-based method (Dorr et al., 2003). As for the statistical machine learning based methods, Banko et al. (2000) apply statistical machine translation techniques by modeling headline generation as a translation task and use 8000 article-headline pairs to train the system.
Rush et al. (2015) propose leveraging news data in Annotated English Gigaword (Napoles et al., 2012) corpus to construct large scale parallel data for sentence summarization task. They propose an ABS model, which consists of an attentive Convolutional Neural Network encoder and an neural network language model (Bengio et al., 2003) decoder. Chopra et al. (2016) extend this work, which keeps the CNN encoder but replaces the decoder with recurrent neural networks. Nallapati et al. (2016) further change the encoder to an RNN encoder, which leads to a full RNN sequence-tosequence model. Besides, they enrich the encoder with lexical and statistic features which play important roles in traditional feature based summarization systems, such as NER and POS tags, to improve performance. Experiments on the Gigaword and DUC 2004 test sets show that the above models achieve state-of-the-art results.
Gu et al. (2016) and Gulcehre et al. (2016) come up similar ideas that summarization task can
benefit from copying words from input sentences. Gu et al. (2016) propose CopyNet to model the copying action in response generation, which also applies for summarization task. Gulcehre et al. (2016) propose a switch gate to control whether to copy from source or generate from decoder vocabulary. Zeng et al. (2016) also propose using copy mechanism and add an extra gate on the GRU/LSTM gate for this task. Cheng and Lapata (2016) use an RNN based encoder-decoder for extractive summarization of documents
Yu et al. (2016) propose a segment to segment neural transduction model for sequence-tosequence framework. The model introduces a latent segmentation which determines correspondences between tokens of the input sequence and the output sequence. Shen et al. (2016) propose applying Minimum Risk Training (MRT) in NMT to directly optimize the evaluation metrics. Ayana et al. (2016) apply MRT on abstractive sentence summarization task and the results show that optimizing for ROUGE improves the test performance.
7 Conclusion
This paper proposes a selective encoding model which extends the sequence-to-sequence model for abstractive sentence summarization task. The selective mechanism mimics one of the human summarizers’ behaviors, selecting important information before writing down the summary. With the proposed selective mechanism, we build an end-to-end neural network summarization model which consists of three phases: encoding, selection, and decoding. Experimental results show that the selective encoding model greatly improves the performance with respect to the state-of-theart methods on English Gigaword, DUC 2004 and MSR-ATC test sets.
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:  The authors propose a selective encoding model as extension to the sequence-to-sequence framework for abstractive sentence summarization. The paper is very well written and the methods are clearly described. The proposed methods are evaluated on standard benchmarks and comparison to other state-of-the-art tools are presented, including significance scores.   - Weaknesses:  There are some few details on the implementation and on the systems to which the authors compared their work that need to be better explained.   - General Discussion:  * Major review:  - I wonder if the summaries obtained using the proposed methods are indeed abstractive. I understand that the target vocabulary is build out of the words which appear in the summaries in the training data. But given the example shown in Figure 4, I have the impression that the summaries are rather extractive. The authors should choose a better example for Figure 4 and give some statistics on the number of words in the output sentences which were not present in the input sentences for all test sets.  - page 2, lines 266-272: I understand the mathematical difference between the vector hi and s, but I still have the feeling that there is a great overlap between them. Both  represent the meaning . Are both indeed necessary? Did you trying using only one of them.  - Which neural network library did the authors use for implementing the system? There is no details on the implementation.  - page 5, section 44: Which training data was used for each of the systems that the authors compare to? Diy you train any of them yourselves?  * Minor review:  - page 1, line 44: Although the difference between abstractive and extractive summarization is described in section 2, this could be moved to the introduction section. At this point, some users might no be familiar with this concept.  - page 1, lines 93-96: please provide a reference for this passage:  This approach achieves huge success in tasks like neural machine translation, where alignment between all parts of the input and output are required.   - page 2, section 1, last paragraph: The contribution of the work is clear but I think the authors should emphasize that such a selective encoding model has never been proposed before (is this true?). Further, the related work section should be moved to before the methods section.  - Figure 1 vs. Table 1: the authors show two examples for abstractive summarization but I think that just one of them is enough. Further, one is called a figure while the other a table.  - Section 3.2, lines 230-234 and 234-235: please provide references for the following two passages:  In the sequence-to-sequence machine translation (MT) model, the encoder and decoder are responsible for encoding input sentence information and decoding the sentence representation to generate an output sentence ;  Some previous works apply this framework to summarization generation tasks.   - Figure 2: What is  MLP ? It seems not to be described in the paper.  - page 3, lines 289-290: the sigmoid function and the element-wise multiplication are not defined for the formulas in section 3.1.  - page 4, first column: many elements of the formulas are not defined: b (equation 11), W (equation 12, 15, 17) and U (equation 12, 15), V (equation 15).  - page 4, line 326: the readout state rt is not depicted in Figure 2 (workflow).  - Table 2: what does  #(ref)  mean?  - Section 4.3, model parameters and training. Explain how you achieved the values to the many parameters: word embedding size, GRU hidden states, alpha, beta 1 and 2, epsilon, beam size.  - Page 5, line 450: remove  the  word in this line?  SGD as our optimizing algorithms  instead of  SGD as our the optimizing algorithms.   - Page 5, beam search: please include a reference for beam search.  - Figure 4: Is there a typo in the true sentence?  council of europe again slams french prison conditions  (again or against?)  - typo  supper script  to  superscript  (4 times)