Studying the Effect of Syntactic Simplification on Text Summarization

References

• I. Mani, and M. T. Maybury. Advances in automatic text summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• A. Nenkova, and L. Vanderwende, “The impact of frequency on summarization,” Microsoft Res Redmond Washington Tech. Rep. MSR-TR-2005, Vol. 101, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• R. Mihalcea, and P. Tarau. “TextRank: Bringing order into text,” in Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2004, pp. 404–11.
   Google Scholar
• G. Erkan, and D. R. Radev, “Lexrank: graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization,” J. Artif. Intell. Res., Vol. 22, pp. 457–79, 2004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y. Gong, and X. Liu. “Generic text summarization using relevance measure and latent semantic analysis,” in Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, 2001, pp. 19–25.
   Google Scholar
• S. Park, B. Cha, and D. U. An, “Automatic multi-document summarization based on clustering and nonnegative matrix factorization,” IETE Tech. Rev., Vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 167–78, 2010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. Chatterjee, and N. Yadav, “Fuzzy rough set-based sentence similarity measure and its application to text summarization,” IETE Tech. Rev., Vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 517–25, 2019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Jing. “Sentence reduction for automatic text summarization,” in Sixth Applied Natural Language Processing Conference, (Seattle, Washington, USA), Association for Computational Linguistics, Apr. 2000, pp. 310–5.
   Google Scholar
• K. Knight, and D. Marcu, “Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probabilistic approach to sentence compression,” Artif. Intell., Vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 91–107, 2002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Zong, R. Xia, and J. Zhang. Text data mining. Singapore: Springer, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• A. Siddharthan, A. Nenkova, and K. McKeown. “Syntactic simplification for improving content selection in multi-document summarization,” in COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, (Geneva, Switzerland), COLING, 2004, pp. 896–902.
   Google Scholar
• M. Shardlow, “A survey of automated text simplification,” Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 58–70, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• N. Chatterjee, and R. Agarwal. “DEPSYM: A lightweight syntactic text simplification approach using dependency trees,” in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Current Trends in Text Simplification (CTTS 2021), co-located with SEPLN, 2021, pp. 42–56.
   Google Scholar
• S. Štajner, and M. Popovic. “Can text simplification help machine translation?” in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 2016, pp. 230–42.
   Google Scholar
• E. Hasler, A. de Gispert, F. Stahlberg, A. Waite, and B. Byrne, “Source sentence simplification for statistical ma-chine translation,” Comput. Speech. Lang., Vol. 45, pp. 221–35, 2017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. Dadu, K. Pant, S. Nagar, F. A. Barbhuiya, and K. Dey. “Text simplification for comprehension-based question-answering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13984, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• D. Vickrey, and D. Koller. “Sentence simplification for semantic role labeling,” in Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, (Columbus, Ohio), Association for Computational Linguistics, June 2008, pp. 344–52.
   Google Scholar
• R. Evans, and C. Orasan. “Sentence simplification for semantic role labelling and information extraction,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP), (Varna, Bulgaria), 2019, pp. 285–94.
   Google Scholar
• S. B. Silveira, and A. Branco. “Combining a double clustering approach with sentence simplification to produce highly informative multi-document summaries,” in2012 IEEE 13thInternational Conference on Information Reuse Integration(IRI), 2012, pp. 482–89.
   Google Scholar
• B. M. Rebello, G. L. d. Santos, C. R. B. d. Ávila, and A. d. S. B. Kida, “Effects of syntactic simplification on reading comprehension of elementary school students,” Audiol-Commun. Res., Vol. 24, pp. 1–8, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• R. Cervantes, and G. Gainer, “The effects of syntactic simplification and repetition on listening comprehension,” Tesol Q., Vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 767–70, 1992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Vanderwende, H. Suzuki, C. Brockett, and A. Nenkova, “Beyond sumbasic: task-focused summarization with sentence simplification and lexical expansion,” Inf. Process. Manage., Vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1606–18, 2007. Text Summarization.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Finegan-Dollak, and D. R. Radev, “Sentence simplification, compression, and disaggregation for summarization of sophisticated documents,” J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., Vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 2437–53, 2016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F. Zaman, M. Shardlow, S.-U. Hassan, N. R. Aljohani, and R. Nawaz, “HTSS: A novel hybrid text summarisation and simplification architecture,” Inf. Process. Manage., Vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 102351, 2020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Vale, R. D. Lins, and R. Ferreira. “An assessment of sentence simplification methods in extractive text summarization,” in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2020, DocEng ‘20, (New York, NY, USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• A. Siddharthan. “Text simplification using typed dependencies: A comparison of the robustness of different generation strategies,” in Proceedings of the 13th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 2011, pp. 2–11.
   Google Scholar
• A. Siddharthan, and A. Mandya. “Hybrid text simplification using synchronous dependency grammars with hand-written and automatically harvested rules,” in Proceedings of the14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014, pp. 722–31.
   Google Scholar
• D. Ferres, M. Marimon, H. Saggion, and A. AbuRa’ed. “Yats: yet another text simplifier,” in International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, Springer, 2016, pp. 335–42.
   Google Scholar
• C. Scarton, A. P. Aprosio, S. Tonelli, T. M. Wanton, and L. Specia. “Musst: a multilingual syntactic simplification tool,” in Proceedings of the IJCNLP 2017, System Demonstrations, 2017, pp. 25–8.
   Google Scholar
• A. Garain, A. Basu, R. Dawn, and S. K. Naskar. “Sentence simplification using syntactic parse trees,” in 4th Inter-national Conference on Information Systems and Computer Networks (ISCON), 2019, pp. 672–6.
   Google Scholar
• R. Evans, and C. Orasan, “Identifying signs of syntactic complexity for rule-based sentence simplification,” Nat. Lang. Eng, Vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 69–119, 2019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Lewis, et al. “BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, (Online), Association for Computational Linguistics, July 2020, pp. 7871–80.
   Google Scholar
• S. Brin, and L. Page, “The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine,” Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst., Vol. 30, no. 1–7, pp. 107–117, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• S. Bird, E. Klein, and E. Loper. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. 335, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• T. Wolf, et al. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing, in: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 2020, pp. 38–45.
   Google Scholar
• K. M. Hermann, T. Kocisky, E. Grefenstette, L. Espeholt, W. Kay, M. Suleyman, and P. Blunsom, “Teaching machines to read and comprehend,” Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst., Vol. 28, pp. 1693–701, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• C.-Y. Lin. “Looking for a few good metrics: Automatic summarization evaluation-how many samples are enough?” in NTCIR, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• T. Zhang, V. Kishore, F. Wu, K. Q. Weinberger, and Y. Artzi. “Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT,” in 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020, OpenReview.net, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• S. Li, D. Lei, P. Qin, and W. Y. Wang. “Deep reinforcement learning with distributional semantic rewards for abstractive summarization,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), (Hong Kong, China), Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 2019, pp. 6038–44.
   Google Scholar
• J. P. Kincaid, R. P. Fishburne Jr, R. L. Rogers, and B. S. Chissom. “Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel,” tech. rep., Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• D. Schicchi, G. L. Bosco, and G. Pilato, “Machine learning models for measuring syntax complexity of English text,” in Biologically inspired cognitive architectures meeting, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 948, A. Samsonovich Ed. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp. 449–54.
   Google Scholar
• R. Agarwal, and N. Chatterjee. “Gradient boosted trees for identification of complex words in context,” in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Current Trends in Text Simplification (CTTS 2021) co-located with SEPLN, 2021, pp. 12–28.
   Google Scholar
• S. Stajner, and I. Hulpus. “When shallow is good enough: Automatic assessment of conceptual text complexity using shallow semantic features,” in Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, (Marseille, France), European Language Resources Association, May 2020, pp. 1414–22.
   Google Scholar
• S. Stajner, and I. Hulpus. Automatic assessment of conceptual text complexity using knowledge graphs,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, (Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA), Association for Computational Linguistics, Aug. 2018, pp. 318–30.
   Google Scholar
• M. Afzal, F. Alam, K. M. Malik, and G. M. Malik, “Clinical context–aware biomedical text summarization using deep neural network: model development and validation,” J. Med. Internet Res., Vol. 22, no. 10, pp. e19810, 2020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar