An Empirical Study of Automatic Document

An Empirical Study of Automatic Document
An Empirical Study of Automatic Document
Extraction
by
Irene M. Wilson
Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and Engineering
and Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
June 1999
@ Copyright 1999 Irene M. Wilson. All rights reserved.
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and
distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis
and to grant others the right to do so.
Author
.........
. ..
-
..........
MASACUSETSIN
MASSACHUSETTS INS
OF TECHNOLOG'
.....
Department of EleXkrical Engineering and Computer Science
May 21, 1999
Certified by. ...
.
.........................................
Howard Shrobe
Associate Director, MIT Al Lab
Accepted by.... L.-..
.
r<~>-.
,Art
ur
t
Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Students
An Empirical Study of Automatic Document Extraction
by
Irene M. Wilson
Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
on May 21, 1999, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degrees of
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and Engineering
and Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Abstract
This paper presents an information extraction system designed to function on all
types of textual input. It uses a combination of several statistical methods to extract
a user-specified number of sentences. In addition, to accommodate for the wide variety
of input types, a different "template" is used to cater to the statistical patterns of
each type. This project provides a flexible framework that could be easily extended
to become a trainable, multi-use extractor. Although it is not limited to any single
application, this product was specifically developed to be used in conjunction with
the START natural language processor. Together, they are capable of assimilating
and storing large quantities of diverse information for retrieval.
Thesis Supervisor: Howard Shrobe
Title: Associate Director, MIT AI Lab
2
Contents
8
1 Introduction
2
3
4
1.1
Why Summarize? .........
.
8
1.2
The Utility of Summarization . .
.
9
1.3
The Challenge of Summarization
.
9
1.4
Project Goals . . . . . . . . . . .
10
12
Background
2.1
Natural Language Processing
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
2.2
Word Occurrence Statistics .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
2.3
Other Statistical Methods
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
2.4
Information Extraction . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
. .
15
Top Level Design
3.1
Project Background . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
15
3.2
The Function of the AutoExtractor . . .
. . . .
16
3.3
User Input Modifications . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
17
3.3.1
Ensuring Sentences are Parseable by START
. . . .
17
3.3.2
The Optimal START Input
.
. . . .
18
3.3.3
Types of User Modifications
.
. . . .
19
3.3.4
Automatic Sentence Modification
. . . .
20
22
Sentence Extractor Design
4.1
Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
24
4.2
4.3
5
4.1.1
Using Natural Language Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
4.1.2
Using Word Occurrence Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
4.1.3
Using Statistical Methods
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
4.1.4
Using Information Extraction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Analyzing Sentence Characteristics
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
4.2.1
Word Occurrence Statistics
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
4.2.2
Other Statistical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
Evaluate Sentence Keyness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
4.3.1
Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
4.3.2
Document templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
35
Design Issues
5.1
5.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
5.1.1
Automatically Determining Document Type . . . . . . . . . .
35
5.1.2
Direct User Type Input
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
5.1.3
Necessary User Modifications
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
Parsing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Compensating for Different Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Determining Document Type
5.2.1
5.3
Possible Parser Modifications
41
6 Testing
6.1
Comparison Techniques.
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
6.2
Calculations . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
6.3
Test Input ...............
...
. . . .
43
6.4
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
6.4.1
General Observations . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
6.4.2
Contrasting Input Types
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
6.4.3
Further Testing . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
...
........
50
7 Conclusions
7.1
Principles Discovered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
50
7.2
7.1.1
Variety Causes Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
7.1.2
The Importance of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
Future W ork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
7.2.1
Improving Upon Word Occurrence Statistics . . . . . . . . . .
52
7.2.2
Adding Additional Sentence Structure Factors . . . . . . . . .
55
7.2.3
Adding Negative Keywords and Phrases
. . . . . . . . . . . .
55
7.2.4
Altering Templates Through Automatic Learning Algorithms.
55
A Testing Instructions
58
B Code
60
Summ.lisp . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
B.4 Char.lisp . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
B.5 Template.lisp
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
B.7 Lib.lisp . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
B.1
B.2 Parse.lisp
B.3 Objects.lisp
B.6
Rank.lisp
83
C Sample Output
C.1 Sample Article Output . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
83
C.2 Sample Documentation Output
. . . . . . . . . .
85
C.3 Sample Report Output . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
88
C.4 Sample Speech Output . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
92
95
D Test Document Sources
D.1 Documentation Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
D .2 Report Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
96
E Templates Used in Testing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
E.2 Documentation Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
E.1
Article Tem plate
5
E.3 Report Template
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
E.4 Speech Template
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
101
F Summary Analysis Results
6
List of Figures
3-1
Top Level Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
4-1
AutoExtractor Design
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
6-1
Summary Scores and Standard Deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
6-2
Percentages for Input Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
7
Chapter 1
Introduction
As time goes by, the ability to automatically summarize text has become more and
more useful. However, despite the fact that automatic summarization has been attempted for decades, current techniques are far from perfect. The extractor which is
presented in this thesis, the AutoExtractor, utilizes the techniques of several other
systems in the attempt to create a flexible and robust method of summarization.
1.1
Why Summarize?
As the years go by and technology progresses, the amount of data available continues
to increase exponentially. We are besieged by mass amounts of information that we
have no hope of assimilating. It is therefore becoming increasingly valuable to be able
to sift quickly though information to discover its content [7].
Consider, for instance, an organization that is interested in keeping abreast of
all recent information pertaining to a particular subject, such as the import and
export of a type of material. It would begin by collecting all possible documents
that might contain this information. New data would have to be collected day by
day, forming a continuous stream of information. Most of this information would be
completely irrelevant. It might then try to narrow its search by looking for key words
or phrases that could indicate the presence of a relevant document. However, it would
undoubtedly find that even this narrowed search is prohibitively large; it simply does
8
not have sufficient resources to process the documents to determine if they are valid
or false hits. The cost of labor and the amount of information is simply too large.
The example given above is only one situation in which the ability to automatically
summarize a document would be extremely valuable. As the amount of available
information continues to increase, such examples become more and more common.
1.2
The Utility of Summarization
There are several distinct ways that a document summary can be useful.
A few
examples are listed below:
o a shortened version of the real document
o a way to determine if the real document is useful
o a text over which to search automatically
o a summary of the results of the activities described
For example, one might wish to create a summary for a document because one does
not have time to read the entire document. Or one might need a summary to discover
quickly if the document covers relevant subject matter. There are many diverse
situations in which summaries are useful or even vital. The task of summarizing is
therefore very widely attempted and different implementations have been utilized for
many years.
1.3
The Challenge of Summarization
Despite the decades of accumulated research on the topic, however, a truly "intelligent" document summarizer is yet to be developed. This task, which is relatively
simple for an educated adult, is simply counter-intuitive to the capabilities of a computer.
9
To implement a summarizer that is truly reliable and accurate in every situation,
it must be able to process the text of the document and somehow "understand" the
content. No statistical analysis techniques are completely trustworthy. The program
must be able to analyze the essence of the document in order to understand what is
important and always produce a summary that humans would find understandable
and relevant.
Unfortunately, understanding the content of a document is no trivial task. Humans have access to massive amounts of data about the world and its interactions
that a computer does not possess. No computer, at present, is capable of reading a
sentence and understanding not only its literal import, but also all the implications
that do not directly follow from the text. For this reason, the task of summarization
is "Al hard"; in other words, it will never be satisfactorily completed until artificial
intelligence is successfully created.
1.4
Project Goals
This fact, however, does not discourage continuing efforts in the area. This thesis
project, though certainly not the only work of its kind, is unique in its combination
of several attributes:
* utilizes a combination of several extracting techniques
" easily alterable to place emphasis on different techniques
" functions over large array of input types
" creates summaries to user's need and specification
The AutoExtractor combines several extracting techniques because it has become
clear that any one technique will not perform robustly over such diverse input. Therefore, several techniques are used so that the disadvantages of each is compensated for
by the advantages of the others.
10
It it written in a flexible format that makes it simple to utilize a different technique or place a new emphasis on certain document characteristics. This makes the
AutoExtractor extremely malleable, and also lends itself to the use of a learning
algorithm to automatically find the optimal setting for a given input-output type.
It functions relatively accurately over an unusually large and diverse array of
input types. Most summarizers are either specific to a certain input type or overly
generalized. Though the use of document type templates, the AutoExtractor handles
any number of document types while retaining the statistical accuracy that is normally
lost when the input type is generalized.
Finally, the AutoExtractor also can be easily adjusted to cater to the user's specific
summary needs. Previously in this chapter, several possible uses for a summary were
listed. Because each summary type indicates a different optimal summary content,
the AutoExtractor templates can also be used to choose sentences that are specific
to the type of summary needed.
11
Chapter 2
Background
Many techniques have been used over the years to solve the problem of automatic
document summarization. This is simply because no one technique is flexible enough
to solve the problem as a whole [12].
Each approach was developed to apply to
specific types of situations. In the paragraphs below, I have briefly described a few of
the more prevalent summarization methods. Each of these methods will be at least
partially incorporated into the structure of my implementation.
2.1
Natural Language Processing
The most obvious and elegant way to summarize a document is to process the content
and use the ideas and information gained to generate a more specific representation
[6]. This is, theoretically, the technique that humans use to summarize. However,
this approach is extremely difficult. Currently, no language processing system has
been developed that can even approach the level of understanding that a human
achieves almost effortlessly. The amount of interconnected information that a human
uses to parse and conceptualize a piece of text is staggering. Trying to represent this
knowledge artificially is a daunting task. As a result, natural language processing,
at present, is only useful when the text it is processing falls into a specific category
or format. The information base needed to represent this specialized data is then
manageable.
12
2.2
Word Occurrence Statistics
Another common technique used in summarization is word occurrence statistics. This
procedure is not complex in theory or application. It attempts to capture the essence
of a document by calculating the frequency of usage of significant words. This information is usually stored in a vector, which can be compared with other such vectors
using a trivial computation. This technique, while quite simple and elegant, is not
always effective.
While there often is a correlation between word occurrence and
content, this is not always the case [10].
Word occurrence methods are a rather unique technique that has its own set of
advantages and disadvantages. It can be especially helpful in situations where the
type of the document is unknown. The algorithm used is completely independent of
the document format, because it only uses frequency of word usage.
However, a word occurrence algorithm is also capable of making drastic errors.
For instance, instead of only recording the frequency of the key words used in the document, it might become sidetracked by also recording the usage of unimportant words
that have nothing to do with the actual topic of the document. In addition, many
words in the English language are spelled the same but actually refer to completely
different objects. A word occurrence algorithm pays no attention to this fact. All
words that look the same are lumped together, regardless of whether they refer to the
same thing. This would create a false correlation, for instance, if one were comparing
two paragraphs, one of which was about the illegal drug "coke" (an abbreviation for
cocaine) and Coke, the popular soft drink [11].
2.3
Other Statistical Methods
Statistical methods assume that the target sentences usually have certain characteristics. These characteristics can include, but are not limited to:
" sentence location in document
" structure of sentence
13
e
occurrence of certain words or phrases in sentence
The document is searched for sentences whose characteristics are similar the the
characteristics that key sentences often have. These are then chosen as good candidates for key sentences. Once again, these methods cannot determine whether a
sentence actually contains relevant content; they can only make an educated guess
based upon previously gathered statistical data.
2.4
Information Extraction
Unlike the previous two summarization techniques, the method of information extraction (also known as "template filling") does not pull sentences directly out of
a document to form the summary. Instead, one need only fill in the blanks of a
summary template that was pre-generated for a specific type of document [5].
For instance, a document might be known to have a certain format or a certain
type of content. Since it is known to contain this data, a template can then generated
for the summary of this document before it is even processed. Then the document
is searched for the specific information to plug into the template. There is no real
understanding of the content; the algorithm only looks for certain words in certain
locations to fill the slots in the summary.
This technique is, obviously, very specialized. Each template can only be used
for one certain type of document.
If there are more than one type of document
in the system, a new template much be generated for each. This is a very useful
and accurate method in certain cases, but it is almost useless when one is trying to
summarize input that cannot be easily categorized [3].
14
Chapter 3
Top Level Design
In combination with a natural language processor, my code creates a system that is
capable of analyzing, documenting, storing, and retrieving textual data.
3.1
Project Background
The AutoExtractor was designed for a specific use as part of a larger project. This
larger project is concerned with the difficulty of processing and storing large amounts
of data. Its goal is to be able to automatically assimilate data such that it can later
be accessed and utilized. The principle tool that is used to accomplish this is the
START natural language processor. START is currently under construction in the
MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. While this system is not comprehensive, it is
capable of processing typical sentences and representing them as interactions between
basic objects. This information can then be accessed by querying the database of
objects and interactions.
Unfortunately, given the difficulty of natural language processing, the START
system is limited in its ability to process input. It cannot understand sentences that
have a complicated sentence structure or that use unfamiliar vocabulary. However,
START is capable of assimilating a more complicated piece of data by associating it
with simple annotations. For example, a long, technical paper can be summarized
into a few sentences that are simple enough for the NLP to process. These sentences
15
DOCUMENT
raw text
START
summary
AUTO
EXTRACTOR
annotation
:r
USER
00
document !ye
# sentences
user modification
->
-------- >
mandatory
optional
Figure 3-1: Top Level Design
are then added to the database, with the full text of the paper attached. In this way,
very complicated text can be assimilated by the system. The same technique can be
applied to other forms of data, such as pictures, charts, discussions, etc.
3.2
The Function of the AutoExtractor
The task of the AutoExtractor is to provide START with parseable annotations for
text that is too long and/or too complicated for START to process. While there
are many programs designed to construct summaries of text, the AutoExtractor is
a sentence extraction algorithm.
This means that instead of trying to construct
sentences to form a coherent summary, the AutoExtractor chooses sentences verbatim
from the document that accurately represent its content [8]. It is therefore based upon
the theory that a coherent summarization can be constructed by selecting sentences
or phrases from the document that are representative of the document as a whole.
For instance, if one were to combine the topic sentence of each paragraph into one
block of text, this text would probably be a good summary of the main ideas in the
16
document.
Finding the sentences which best represent a document is not always possible. In
fact, there is no guarantee that such a collection of sentences exists. The alternative
ways of generating a summary, however, were either too complex or too limiting for
our use.
3.3
User Input Modifications
The optimal document processor would need no human aid to do its job. However,
given the state of Artificial Intelligence at this time, the AutoExtractor output must
be modified before it is fed to the START NLP.
3.3.1
Ensuring Sentences are Parseable by START
Although the complexity of the document assimilation has been greatly simplified
by submitting annotations in place of the full document, it is still complicated by
the fact that START cannot parse sentences that are overly complex in structure or
content. Sentences that have several clauses, for instance, are often rejected. Also,
the START program has a limited, if relatively large, lexicon. This means that if
the sentence contains words that are not in the lexicon, the sentence often cannot be
parsed or assimilated properly. Given the technical nature of most of the summaries
my program will produce, chances are extremely high that at least some portion will
be unprocessable by START because of either complex sentence structure or the usage
of unknown vocabulary.
Therefore, the Autoextractor output must be altered to match the level of simplicity that the NLP requires. There are two possible ways to do this. One could
either modify the code so that any sentences that are not parseable by the NLP are
not selected to be in the document summary. Alternatively, one could generate the
best possible summary, then modify the sentences to conform to the NLP's requirements. Ideally, the second option is more attractive because one would not be forced
to discard the best summarizing sentences simply because they are too complex for
17
START to parse. Automatically altering the format and perhaps even the content of
a sentence, however, was too complex a task to be tacked in the scope of this thesis.
For this reason, the task of editing the sentences for START compatibility is at this
time performed by a human operator.
3.3.2
The Optimal START Input
It was mentioned above that one must be careful that the sentences provided as input
to the START system are not so complex in structure or vocabulary that START is
not able to parse them. In addition, the sentences provided as annotation for larger
documents must contain just the right amount and type of information to get the best
results. Using certain types of input will result in greater accuracy and success in
processing. In order to retrieve information about an item that has been entered into
the START database, one must ask a question that matches that item of information.
For example, if one might enter the following annotation into the START system:
Bally Entertainment Corp. is seeking federal antitrust clearance to acquire
a major stake in gambling rival Circus Circus Enterprises Inc.
To access this information, the user would have to enter a query about the objects
created when the statement above was entered. One possible query would be:
What corporations are seeking federal antitrust clearance?
Another possible query:
What sort of relationship does Bally Entertainment Corp.
have with
Circus Circus Enterprises Inc.?
If the statement given above were part of the annotation for a larger document
dealing with the business dealings of the Bally Entertainment Corp. with the Circus Circus Enterprises Inc., this would be a moderately good summarizing sentence.
One of the queries given above would have a good chance of triggering the original
statement and causing the entire document to be retrieved.
18
If the original document dealt instead with the subject of the Circus Circus Enterprises business dealings in general, however, this sentence would still trigger on
both of the above queries, and START would respond to the query with a primarily
irrelevant document. For this reason, it is important to prevent sentences that are
too specific from being chosen for the summary.
In the same manner, it is also important not to choose sentences that are too
general. In this case, a query that asks specifically about the data in the document
might not trigger that document because the summary is so general that the two
sentences would not match.
It is a delicate process to decide how much information to provide about a document. One must look at the problem not from the standpoint of a summarizer, but
from the standpoint of a person that might wish to access this information. What
queries would a person interested in that document be likely to ask? What sort of
statements would trigger with those queries? Those statements are not necessarily of
the same form as the sentences one would choose as the best summarizing sentences
in the document.
3.3.3
Types of User Modifications
Because the AutoExtractor is not accurate enough to select only sentences that meet
the above criteria, some extra modification is needed. At present, this modification
is provided by the human user. After a document has been summarized, it is the
responsibility of the user to choose those sentences from that summary that contain
the right information and ensure that they are simple enough that the START system
could process them. This usually entails:
" Eliminating extraneous clauses or sentences that add complexity or unnecessary
vocabulary
" Selecting the sentences in the summary that specifically mention the main points
in the document
19
* Eliminating the sentences or clauses that provide extraneous data about the
document
While this creates undesirable overhead for the human operator, it is significantly
preferable to the alternative of reading the document, finding the summarizing sentences, and then editing them for compatibility with the START system.
3.3.4
Automatic Sentence Modification
It is quite possible that the role of the human operator could be completely elimitated
from the function of this system with only a slight decrease in accuracy of sentence
selection.
A new piece of code could be written to evaluate the sentences chosen
by the AutoExtractor and alter them as necessary to conform to the START input
requirements.
For instance, if a sentence contains a clause that mentions information that is not
relevant to the main topic of the document, this clause can be removed automatically.
A sentence may contain several clauses that cause the sentence to be very complex,
but are not necessary to retain the main point of the sentence. Consider the following
sentence:
There was significant growth in manufacturing activity during the month,
overtaking previous record levels, and prices were forced up as suppliers
failed to meet the increase in demand.
The phrase "overtaking previous record levels" causes extra complexity, but can
be removed without destroying the key content of the sentence.
The same technique could be applied to sentences that are too complex for START
to parse. These sentences could be simplified by removing clauses or separating the
original sentence into multiple sentences.
The problem of the limited lexicon is more simple to overcome. While START is
capable of processing sentences without outside aid, it also can utilize user-supplied
"hints". For instance, if the sentence contains a proper noun that is not contained in
20
the lexicon, START must simply be informed that the word is a noun, to be able to
process the sentence. This type of information can easily be supplied automatically
through any of a number of sentence parsers.
It is difficult to know with any certainty whether it would be possible to create a
piece of code to seamlessly link the AutoExtractor to the START NLP. More research
needs to be done to determine exactly how the output of the AutoExtractor relates
to the optimal input to START, and what sorts of alterations typically need to be
done. If these alterations form predictable patterns, it may be possible to create a
program to perform the alterations automatically and eliminate the role of the human
operator completely.
21
Chapter 4
Sentence Extractor Design
As this report progresses, the individual components of the AutoExtractor will be
examined in more detail. Its basic technical function, however, is as follows:
1. The document type of the input must be established. This information can
either be provided by the user or automatically detected in the Document Type
Recognizer. See section 5.1.1 for more information.
2. The reformatter must take the raw input of the text and alter it so that it
conforms with the format that the rest of the AutoExtractor is programmed to
recognize. It uses the knowledge of the document type to do this. See section
5.3 for more information.
3. The Parser breaks down the document into a tree of structure objects that
hold all necessary information about the document. See section 5.2 for more
information.
4. The Characteristic Evaluator creates a sentence characteristic object for each
sentence, which holds all the characteristics needed to compute the goodness of
a sentence for extraction.
5. The Calculator uses the appropriate document template in conjunction with
the sentence characteristic values to calculate a overall rating for each sentence.
See section 4.3.1 for more information.
22
DOCUMENT
USER
0 0
I
I
t p
I
IDC
I
RE(
I
tentati
doe t3
I
I
doc
doe t3
CALCULI
I
#sentences>
-------- >
sentences
Figure 4-1: AutoExtractor Design
23
mandatory
optional
6. The top n sentences are returned as the output of the AutoExtractor, where n
is determined by the user.
While all aspects of the technical implementation of the AutoExtractor will not be
explained in detail in this chapter, there are several design decisions and techniques
that will be discussed in this chapter. Some non-central design decisions are also
discussed in chapter 5, "Design Issues".
Some sample input documents with their AutoExtractor generated summaries are
included in Appendix C.
4.1
Design Principles
None of the popular summarization methods mentioned in the background section
appear to contain all the qualities that are necessary to create a robust, adaptable way
to process textual information. Therefore, the AutoExtractor is a hybrid of sevaeral
techniques that combines to form an algorithm that is both accurate and adaptable.
Alone or together, no method can guarantee that an accurate, coherent summary will
be generated. By combining techniques, however, the flaws in one implementation
can be compensated for by another. This results in an overall greater probability that
an acceptable summary will be generated.
The following sections will describe how several different summarizing techniques
are combined in the AutoExtractor.
4.1.1
Using Natural Language Processing
As was mentioned earlier in this paper, it is effectively impossible at this time to create
a natural language processing system that can interpret and understand language as
well as a human. However, systems have been developed that can process certain
types of input. The START NLP, mentioned above, is one such system.
Therefore, while the technique of natural language processing is not currently
utilized in the AutoExtractor to any appreciable extent, the project as a whole is ex24
tremely dependent on START to process the output of the AutoExtractor and record
the facts represented there. The AutoExtractor does not have to process the text at
all or make any judgements about its content. In addition, the primary weakness of
natural language processing, namely, the extreme difficulty of processing complicated
text, is overcome by using the other summarizing techniques in the AutoExtractor.
The task of the other summarizing techniques is now reduced to changing the
content of a document into a format that can be understood by the NLP. While this
is significantly easier than analyzing the document from scratch, it is still a formidable
task.
4.1.2
Using Word Occurrence Statistics
Word occurrence is one of the primary methods used in the AutoExtractor. While
its utility is greatly affected by the type of document being processed, in certain
situations there is simply no other technique that is useful.
Studies have shown that this technique is not a particularly accurate method of
extracting information from structured, predictable documents like technical reports
or newspaper articles. For other types of input, like informal emails or speeches, its
use can be vital. When a document has little structure, the best way to decide which
sentences are key is to trigger off the words in the sentence. For this reason, word
occurrence is an extremely valuable technique when dealing with such varied and
unpredictable input.
4.1.3
Using Statistical Methods
There are several other statistical methods that are used in the AutoExtractor in conjunction with the word occurrence techniques. Specifically, it analyzes the location
and format of each sentence and calculates a fitness number based upon its characteristics. This is a very powerful technique that has proven to be successful in other
experiments [12]. While not as specialized as information retrieval techniques, statistical methods are much more useful when the document type is known. With the
25
help of document templates to cater to the statistical information of each document
type, statistical methods provide some useful information for almost any input.
4.1.4
Using Information Extraction
The technique of information extraction is so specific to a certain type of document
that it is almost useless when the input is very diverse [12]. However, some related
methods can be very useful.
One example of information extraction in the AutoExtractor is the use of section
and paragraph headings. The program looks for specific words and phrases in the
headings to indicate that the following paragraphs are likely to contain good summarizing sentences. This is related to information extraction techniques in that the
program triggers off key words and phrases to find the information it desires.
In addition, the AutoExtractor searches the text to detect words or phrases that
might indicate the presence of a good summarizing sentence. Without understanding
anything of the context or meaning, it gives a sentence that contains certain phrases
higher probability of being selected. This also is a common technique in information
extraction.
While information extraction is not as useful when the input is very diverse, it can
be helpful when used in conjunction with other techniques by providing statistical
clues that otherwise would be lost.
4.2
Analyzing Sentence Characteristics
There are many factors that may indicate that a sentence should be chosen as a
summarizing sentence for a document. When a person tries to find key sentences
for a document, but he does not have time to read it and generate his own, he will
probably use this sentence extraction method. He will scan the document, looking in
the most likely locations first. He will look for sentences that have a certain format
and structure, and that contain words or phrases that seem relevant to the rest of the
document. These words or phrases may seem important because they are mentioned
26
often throughout the paper or in the section headings. These are all techniques that
the AutoExtractor uses. It is incapable of reading and understanding the text, but it
is able to mimic the other techniques a human might use.
4.2.1
Word Occurrence Statistics
Analyzing word occurrence is the technique used to determine if a sentence contains
words that are important in the document as a whole. In this way, it determines that
one sentence is more likely to be a good representation of the document content than
another. It is discussed in more detail in the previous chapter.
As each word in the document is read, it is analyzed to see if it is a significant
word- that is, not a proposition, conjunction, etc. If it is significant, it is added to
a list that keeps track of what significant words the document contains. It is also
added to a similar list for the specific sentence it is in. These lists are saved in the
form of a vector. Each location in the vector represents a certain word, and the value
of that location is how many times that word appears in the document or sentence.
When the document is completely parsed, the sentence vectors are then scaled and
compared against the document vector. If a sentence vector is very similar to the
document vector, it theoretically contains a good representative selection of words
from the document.
In the AutoExtractor, the method of choosing keywords is quite simple. A permanent list of non-keywords is constructed, and as long as the word is not in the list, it is
assumed to be a keyword. The non-keyword list consists of prepositions, determiners,
and other words that are usually irrelevant to the content of the sentence. Using this
technique, many unimportant words are included in the word vector, but at least
very few significant words are excluded. In addition, this method takes a negligible
amount of time and is trivial to implement.
27
4.2.2
Other Statistical Methods
In addition to word occurrence, several other types of statistical methods are extensively used in the AutoExtractor. For each sentence, certain characteristics are
recorded that may have an impact on the likelihood that the sentence is a key sentence.
Sentence Location
When a human is pressed for time and wishes to quickly find the main points of a
document, he will skim certain locations first. For instance, he may read the paragraph labeled "introduction" or "conclusion". He is very unlikely to pick a random
paragraph in the middle of the text and expect it to give him good insight into the
content of the document as a whole. This is because the good summarizing sentences
are usually located in certain places in the text.
The AutoExtractor utilizes this fact by taking note of the sentences that occur
in these special areas. The locational characteristics that the AutoExtractor records
are:
" sentence location in the paragraph
" paragraph location in the section
" section location in document
" the paragraph or section heading
The first, second, or last sentence in the paragraph is often the topic sentence of the
paragraph. Therefore, it is important to record the sentence location in the paragraph.
It is often also necessary to remember information about the paragraph and section
in which the sentence appears. First or last paragraphs often are summaries of the
section they appear in, and so are more likely to contain key sentences. Sections at the
beginning or end of a document are also often more likely to contain key sentences.
In addition to the location of the paragraph or section, it might also be important
to analyze the titles or headings under which the sentence appears. For instance, one
28
is clearly more likely to find a key sentence under a section entitled "Abstract". For
this reason, the AutoExtractor has a list of phrases that it searches for in each title
or heading. If one of these "title-phrases" are found, all sentences under that title
may be given an advantage.
Sentence Characteristics
The characteristics of the sentence itself can also be important when trying to find
a likely key sentence. The sentence structure characteristics that the AutoExtractor
records are:
" length of sentence
" occurrence of key words or phrases in sentence
The length of the sentence, for instance, can be useful information if one wishes
prevent the AutoExtractor from choosing abnormally short sentences as key sentences.
Also, one can decide to give an advantage to medium or longer sentences, which may
be more likely to be good key sentences than short ones.
The AutoExtractor also records which sentences contain "keyphrases". A keyphrase
is any phrase that might occur more frequently in good summarizing sentences. For
instance, if a sentence includes the phrase "this report shows", this may indicate that
it is a good sentence to include in the summary. When a sentence contains a keyword,
this is recorded for later use in calculating sentence fitness.
4.3
Evaluate Sentence Keyness
Once all relevant information about the sentences of the document has been gathered,
the program must then decide which sentences should be chosen. This is accomplished
by calculating a total score for each sentence based upon the characteristics it has
and the document type.
29
4.3.1
Calculations
The AutoExtractor was designed to use a very straightforward and intuitive method of
calculating sentence scores. This is so that it is simple and easy to make modifications.
All the sentences in the document have certain recorded characteristics. For example, each sentence has a length, position, keyphrase content, etc. Each of these
characteristic has a weight which represents how much impact that characteristic will
have on the probability that the sentence is good to include in the summary. For
instance, the length of a sentence may be much less important than the location
of the sentence in its paragraph. Therefore, the weight of the length characteristic
would be much lower than the weight of the paragraph location characteristic. Characteristic weights must be greater than or equal to zero. There is no upper limit the
characteristic weights, and they do not have to sum to any total.
There are many possible values for each sentence characteristic. For example, the
sentence length characteristic can have the values very short, short, medium, or long.
Each of these values is assigned a score. For instance, if very short sentences are
very unlikely to be good key sentences, it will have a score of zero. A short sentence
might be a little more likely, so it will be given a score of .3. Medium and long
sentences might be equally likely to be key sentences, so they are given a score of 1.
Characteristic scores must be equal to or greater than zero, and equal to or less than
1. They do not have to sum to any value. The best the value(s) for a characteristic
should be assigned the score of 1. The worst should be assigned a zero. If this is
not the case, the program will still work, but the characteristic will effectively not be
given the weight that was intended.
Calculating a sentence's score from its characteristic values is trivial. First, one
must multiply each characteristic weight by the score of its value. The sentence score
is computed by adding these numbers together.
Assume that ce, refers to sentence characteristic n. w(c,) then refers to the weight
of characteristic n. v(cs) represents the value assigned to characteristic n, and s(v(c,))
represents the score of the value assigned to characteristic n. Then the figure below
30
represents the method of calculating a sentence score:
w(ci)s8(V (ci))
W
(4.1)
There are several advantages to this rather simplistic method of computing sentence fitness. First, it is trivial to add or remove sentence characteristics to the
equation. No modifications need to be made to the existing characteristic weights or
value scores. The addition or removal of a characteristic only increases or decreases
the total possible sentence fitness. Since the comparative fitness between sentences is
the only significant factor, changing the total possible fitness score is irrelevant. One
can also add or remove characteristic values without altering any other characteristic.
If, for instance, one wanted to make a distinction between "long" sentence length and
"cvery long" sentence length, one need only add the "very long" sentence length and
assign it a score. One might also need to alter the scores of the other values in the
characteristic.
In addition to being easy to alter or extend, this method of sentence scoring is
also very intuitive. The importance of a document characteristic is simply determined
by its numerical weight. To compare its importance with the importance of another
characteristic, one need only compare the two weights. If one weight is twice as large
as the other, that characteristic is twice as significant.
4.3.2
Document templates
The characteristic weights and slot values mentioned above must be assigned numbers
such that the AutoExtractor is most likely to choose good summarizing sentences.
Because of the wide variety of input and output types, however, document templates
are used to cater to the statistical peculiarities of each input and output combination.
See appendix E for an example of document templates.
31
Templates for Document Types
In order to process varied input data, the AutoExtractor was created with the ability
to use "templates", which make it possible to utilize the statistical data of that
document type to its fullest extent.
Most document summarization projects have a limited type of input material.
The AutoExtractor, however, was designed to summarize any type of input. This
could include but is not limited to:
" technical reports
" documentation
" newspaper articles
" discussions
" verbal presentations
" informal discourse
The list of possibilities is long and varied, and each one of these document types
is quite unique. They use different vocabulary and sentence structure, in addition to
having a different document structure and formatting. The information content is in
different locations and in varying concentrations. It would be extremely difficult to
generalize over this entire set of documents. In fact, it may very well be impossible.
For example, one might examine a newspaper article versus a verbal presentation.
In a newspaper article, the most important information is concentrated heavily in
the beginning of the article.
The first paragraph almost always contains all the
vital information in the article. In response, one might increase the weight of the
"paragraph location" characteristic and give the "first paragraph" value a score of 1.
This means that the fact that a sentence is in the first paragraph would have a large
positive effect on the overall sentence fitness score.
32
However, a verbal presentation does not have the same structure as a newspaper
article. A speaker will often start the presentation with a long, roundabout introduction, and will often not address the central issue until well into the speech. For this
type of document, the weight of the "paragraph location" characteristic might not
be very high, since a speaker may come to the point at almost any time during the
speech. Also, the "first paragraph" score of the "paragraph location" characteristic
will probably not be 1, since a paragraph in the middle of the speech is more likely
to contain a good summarizing sentence than the first one.
The example given above is only one of many difficulties that arise when one
attempts to generalize over different types of documents. In order to have any sort of
success using statistical extraction methods, different types of documents must use
different statistical data. For this reason, the AutoExtractor was designed to analyze
different types of documents using their own statistical data. Each document type
has a "template" that contains all the characteristics that that is significant for that
document type, and all the value scores for those characteristics. It is a simple matter
to add a new type of document to the system; one must only create a new template
file.
Templates for Summary Types
In addition to using templates to cater to the statistical information about a specific
document type, templates can be used to create summaries that are customized to
the needs of the user.
In the introduction to this paper, it was mentioned that there are many possible
applications for a document summary. The optimal summary for one application is
not necessarily the best summary for a different application. For instance, if one
needed a summary to determine whether the complete document was relevant, the
optimal summary would contain all the main subjects discussed. If one needed a summary of the results of the experiment discussed in the paper, however, the optimal
summary would contain the basic facts of the experiment performed and the results.
Therefore, two "good" summaries of the same document can have very different con33
tent based upon the type of summary needed.
The fact that there are so many different uses for a summary makes the job
of the summarizer even more complex. To create a summary specific to a certain
use, one must create a template that weights heavily those characteristics needed in
the extracted sentences. In this way, the AutoExtractor can be modified to extract
different types of sentences.
Although the summarizer was designed specifically to manufacture the type of
document that is well suited as input to the START natural language processing
system, the template system makes it simple to expand its capabilities to other uses.
34
Chapter 5
Design Issues
There were several interesting and challenging aspects of this project that were not
necessarily central to the issues of document extraction. These are discussed below.
5.1
Determining Document Type
In order to use the correct template, the AutoExtractor must know what type of
document it is evaluating. There are two ways to accomplish this: either the user can
explicitly tell the system the type of document, or the AutoExtractor can look at the
characteristics of the document and make a guess.
5.1.1
Automatically Determining Document Type
There are many document characteristics that can indicate that a document is of a
certain type. For instance, certain types of documents may have specific headers or
signatures. If there is a finite number of document formats that will be used as input
to the AutoExtractor, one can be sure that certain characteristics, like the content
of the header, will be present in order to categorize the input into these preset types.
This method is both fast and accurate.
If the system is not guaranteed to receive input in a certain format, however,
it must resort to other, more subjective methods. In this case, some or all of the
35
following indicators must be used:
" content of headings and subheadings
" formatting
- number and size of paragraphs and section
- presence of lists and/or figures
" document length
" writing style
- type of vocabulary
- sentence length
- sentence structure
One may in fact be able to categorize an input based solely on the format or tone
of the document.
For instance, if the document has section and paragraph head-
ings, and if some of these headings contain the keywords "abstract", "introduction"
or "conclusion", this could indicate that the document is a formal report. On the
other hand, if the document has a less rigid structure and contains simple, informal
vocabulary and punctuation, it might be an informal email or speech transcript. This
method of document categorization is more computationally intensive and might not
always be accurate. However, any attempt at categorization is preferable to randomly choosing a template that may have no statistical relevance to the document in
question.
5.1.2
Direct User Type Input
The simplest and most accurate method of categorization, of course, is to explicitly
tell the system the type of the input it is receiving. This requires that the inputs are
already categorized or that a human operator is available to categorize the documents
as they are entered. If this is not practical, the more subjective methods mentioned
above must be relied upon.
36
5.1.3
Necessary User Modifications
At present, the portion of code that controls document recognition is incomplete.
This is because there is no information available at this time regarding the types of
the documents that will be used as input. In fact, this section of code will need to
be adjusted for each different environment in which the system is used. Currently,
the code analyzes the document and records information that might be useful for
categorization, such as the header, section titles, word frequencies, keyword usage,
etc. To recognize a certain type of document, one need only check if it contains
certain distinguishing characteristic(s) and return the appropriate document type.
If the user, however, does not have the time or knowledge to alter the code in this
fashion, it is always possible to simply choose a default categorization (resulting in
some loss of accuracy) or categorize the inputs by hand.
5.2
Parsing Issues
Parsing the input documents, though not part of the experimental aspect of this
project, was nevertheless quite challenging. There are several products available that
can automatically parse a document, but I chose to write my own parser instead.
This is because I wanted to have the flexibility of parsing exactly where and what
was needed specifically for the AutoExtractor product.
For example, the parser for the AutoExtractor must be able to detect paragraph
and section breaks in documents that do not contain tags to indicate these locations.
The parser also must be able to record which sentences are in each paragraph and
section.
Perhaps most importantly, however, one can never be sure what document characteristic might become an important piece of information for extraction. Using a
commercial or pre-written parser would create a risk of being unable to modify the
parser to record the information needed.
Since I wrote my own parser, however,
gathering new data about a document is as simple as modifying a few lines of code.
The information that the AutoExtractor parser records at this time is listed below:
37
*
document heading
" section breaks
" paragraph breaks
" section titles
" paragraph titles
" fragment sentences
" total number of sentences
" total word content for the document
" sentence text
5.2.1
Possible Parser Modifications
There are, however, several aspects of a document that may be useful in the detection
of good summarizing sentences that are not currently detected by the document
parser.
One significant example of this is the comma. If the parser were able to recognize
commas in the text, it could gather valuable information about the structure and
complexity of a sentence.
In some situations, this information could be vital in
detecting or eliminating sentences of a certain structure.
Another piece of information that the AutoExtractor parser does not record is
recursive section breaks.
Currently, the parser can only distinguish two levels of
structure in a document: the section and the paragraph. Therefore any subsections,
subsubsections, etc. are simply interpreted as paragraphs. This limits the AutoExtractor's ability to gain information from the substructure of the document.
There is an almost infinite amount of information that the parser could glean
from a document. As the AutoExtractor continues to be developed and honed for
accuracy, the truly significant aspects of the document will be pinpointed. At that
time, the parser can be modified to collect exactly the amount of data needed.
38
5.3
Compensating for Different Formats
In addition to causing problems with statistical variation, the wide diversity of input types also causes basic formatting difficulties. Each of the different input types
has its own way of delimitating sections, paragraph breaks, headings, tables, etc.
For instance, an HTML document appears quite different from a Word document
or an informal email, even though all these documents can contain the same basic
structures.
It would be extremely difficult to train the parser to recognize all the different
formats that it may receive as input. Therefore, the AutoExtractor first runs the
document through a reformatter to alter the input document so that its structure is
of the format that the parser has been trained to recognize. The basic characteristics
of the standard parser format are as follows:
" Fragments at the beginning of the document are headings
" Sections are separated by two or more returns
" Paragraphs are separated by one return
e Titles are fragments separated by returns
" No carriage returns at the end of lines
For example, if an informal email was used as input, it would probably be in a
raw text format with carriage returns at the end of each line and large header at the
beginning of the file. When entered into the reformatter, the email header would be
removed and the carriage returns at the end of each line would be removed.
If an HTML document were entered as input, the formatter would examine the
tags and reformat the document accordingly. Where a new section begins, it would
separate the text with two returns. New paragraph tags would cause the text to be
separated with one return. The title would be placed on a line separated by returns.
Any HTML code or tags would be removed.
39
The reformatter is a portion of code that is impossible to write before the input
document types are known. Documents vary widely in their format, and it is simply
not possible to anticipate the changes a new input type would require. Therefore, once
a new input type is known, the reformatter must be augmented to handle this new
type. Its task is greatly simplified by the fact that the document type is determined
by the document type recognizer. See section 5.1 for more information on document
type recognition.
40
Chapter 6
Testing
Testing the performance of this system is not a simple task. There many interrelated
variables factoring into the calculation of the best possible summarizing sentences.
In addition, determining the success of a summarization is a very arbitrary and time
consuming procedure.
6.1
Comparison Techniques
To test the AutoExtractor, its performance was compared against that of a human
summarizer. This was accomplished by running a set of texts through the AutoExtractor and then having these same texts manually summarized. The human summarizers were instructed to choose the top log2 (log2 n - 2) - 1 sentences that best
summarized the text, where n is the number of sentences in the document. They were
also instructed to choose the next log 2 n - 2 best summarizing sentences in the text.
See appendix A for the specific instructions given.
To generate the document type templates for each different input type, one fourth
of the test set was used. The template values were set so that they would maximize
the performance on this segment of the testing set. The remainder of the testing set
was then used to evaluate the actual performance.
41
6.2
Calculations
The summaries were scored using the following procedure:
Every sentence is a assigned a rank. If the AutoExtractor selects a sentence, the
rank of that sentence is the order in which that sentence was selected. For example,
the sentence that received the highest score from the AutoExtractor has rank one, the
second best rank 2, and so on. Sentences that are not selected by the AutoExtractor
are assigned rank 0. The rank of a sentence x is denoted r(x).
Assume the total set of sentences that the human underlines is u. The total
set of sentences that the human circles is c. Therefore, the set ur > 0 is the set of
underlined sentences that have rank greater than zero; that is, the sentences that are
both selected by the AutoExtractor and underlined by the human.
|cl
denotes the number of sentences in the set c. Jul is the number of sentences in
the set u. These numbers are determined as described above by the total number of
sentences in the document.
The total score for a document summary is calculated using the following equation:
1
2(|cl + Jul) - r(ui) + 1
2(1c| + ul))
Jlir(U)>0}
1
c {i:r(cj)>O}
2(|cl + Jul) - r(ci) + 1
2(|cl + Jul))
(6.1)
The rationale behind this method of scoring is as follows: The left half of the
equation represents the score for the sentences that were underlined. The right half
represents the sentences circled. The circled sentences represent the best summarizing sentences in the document. The underlined sentences indicate a larger volume
of good summarizing sentences. These two subtotals are intended to be equally significant in the total score, indicating that choosing the best summarizing sentence is
approximately as important as choosing several good sentences.
The higher the rank of an underlined or circled sentence, the larger the benefit to
the summary score. Therefore, a sentence of rank cr is assigned the value:
2(Icj+lul)-r(u)+1
2(IcI+IuI)
42
This distributes the values of the ranked sentences from .5 to 1. The sentences
with rank zero are assigned a value of zero.
The values of all underlined sentences are summed together and divided by the
total number of underlined sentences. The same procedure is followed with the circled
sentences. Then the two resulting numbers are added to create the final summary
score.
6.3
Test Input
Several different types of documents were chosen as test input:
* 20 reports
* 20 documentation papers
e 20 transcribed speeches
* 20 newspaper articles
These four categories by no means represent the total array of possible input
document types. They do, however, well illustrate the variety of input possible.
The reports consist of papers ranging from quite technical to moderately informal.
All contain a title and are divided into sections and paragraphs.
They were not
intended to be related in any specific way; each report addresses different subject
matter. They vary in length from one page to several chapters. The reports were
found at the URLs listed in appendix D.
The documentation papers each describe the technical aspects of a system. Many
of these papers are subsections of a larger body of documentation. The subjects of
the documentation papers are quite varied. Some of the papers are taken from the
same larger body of documentation. Otherwise, the content is unrelated. They are
from one to several pages in length. The documentation documents were found at
the URLs listed in appendix D.
43
The transcribed speeches are all from the same source; namely, presidential addresses to the public between the dates of March 15, 1997 and March 27, 1999. The
format of the speeches are very similar, but the content varies in accordance with the
current issues of the nation. Each speech is one to two pages in length.
Finally, all 20 newspaper articles are taken from the New York Times. The articles
are from one to several pages in length. Their content is varied and unrelated.
6.4
6.4.1
Results
General Observations
The results of the testing were generally positive. Thirty-seven out of sixty document
summaries, or 62%, contained a circled sentence; that is, a sentence that the human
chose as the best summarizing sentence of the document. Only fourteen out of sixty
summaries, or 23%, did not contain any of the sentences that the human selected.
See appendix F for the machine and human results, as well as the actual scores of
each summary.
As I personally looked through the results, I felt that most of the summaries did
contain enough information to generally describe the topic of the document. However,
it also became clear that many of the sentences selected are completely inappropriate
as summarizing sentences. It is not difficult for a human to recognize which of these
sentences are good and which are irrelevant. Perhaps there is a way to automate this
process, so that less inappropriate sentences are included in the future.
6.4.2
Contrasting Input Types
The performance of the AutoExtractor varied widely across the four document types
used as input. Figure 6-1 shows the average summary score and the summary standard deviation for each document type.
Figure 6-2 shows, for each document type, the percentage of AutoExtractor summaries which contained a circled sentence and the percentage of documents in which
44
I
.87
average summary score
.8
summary standard dev
71
.6
.51
.42
.4
.45
.42
.44
.39
.38
.2
0
Figure 6-1: Summary Scores and Standard Deviation
45
D0
circled sentence included
H
8
80
no sentence overlap
60
60
47
0
EH
Z
40
40
U
.27
27
220
20O
6.7
00
Figure 6-2: Percentages for Input Types
there was no overlap between the AutoExtractor summary and the sentences chosen
by the human.
Newspaper Articles
The newspaper article was the second best summarized document type, with an average summary score of .706. This number is probably due to the fact that most
summarizing sentences in an article are primarily located in the first two paragraphs.
This is a simple trend for the AutoExtractor to identify and take advantage of. Identifying a summarizing sentence that is located in the body of the article, however,
was more rare.
46
Documentation Documents
The high scores of the documentation summaries were quite surprising. The average
documentation score was .873, which was significantly higher than the speech or
report average. This can be attributed primarily to the fact that the AutoExtractor
often chose a circled sentence from the document. This, in turn, is probably a result
of the fact that a documentation document almost always gives a good summarizing
sentence in the very beginning of the document, followed by very few in the rest of
the document. Therefore, it is easy for the AutoExtractor to identify the primary
summarizing sentence.
Reports
The results of the report scoring were rather disappointing with an average of .453.
This was significantly lower than both the article and documentation scores. I fear
that the performance may have been better if the parser was more accurate. I suspect that the paragraph and sections breaks and headers were not always properly
identified. In addition, the low scores may have been caused by the fact that the reports had more internal variation than the other document types. The reports varied
widely in content and tone, from short informal discussions to long, technical reports.
Speeches
The speeches received the lowest average score with a .383. I suspect that this was
due to the lack of structure in a verbal presentation. The human summarizers did
not consistently choose sentences from any one section of the document. The sentences chosen did not contain any unique structural elements that would distinguish
them from the rest of the document. This is probably the result of too many good
summarizing sentences. In a short address, the president felt the need to use many
catch phrases and sweeping statements. For this reason, the speech documents were
liberally sprinkled with good summarizing sentences. This makes it very difficult for
the human and AutoExtractor to agree on only a few best sentences.
47
6.4.3
Further Testing
There is a great deal of additional testing that would provide further insight into
the accuracy of the AutoExtractor. Unfortunately, the lack of time and resources
prevented me from performing these tests.
Comparing with Other Extractors
The data gained through the tests above is somewhat unilluminating, since the performance of the AutoExtractor was analyzed in isolation. To gain information about
the AutoExtractor in comparison with other extractors, one could run the same input
used above through the other extractors. These results could then be scored with the
same process, and the performance of the two extractors could be compared directly.
Analyzing Scoring Accuracy
The results of these tests are somewhat suspect because there is no measurement
of their consistency. There are several reasons that these scores may prove to be
inconsistent. The sentences selected by the human are usually not the only sentences
that can create an accurate document summary. Each person has a different opinion
of what constitutes a good summary, and a summary that receives a good score
when graded by one user might receive a bad score when graded by another [9]. In
addition, some documents might contain so many good summarizing sentences that
there is not a very large overlap in sentence selection. (I suspect this to be the case
with the speech documents.) Alternatively, some documents may not contain enough
summarizing sentences, so that the AutoExtractor and human are forced to pick
almost randomly. (This I suspect to be the case with the documentation documents.)
One way to discover the amount of precision in the testing results is to have each
document analyzed by several humans. If there is a significant amount of overlap, then
the testing results are valid. If the humans consistently choose different sentences,
then it would be clear that the summary scoring somewhat arbitrary, and should not
be taken too seriously.
48
Analyzing the Document Templates
Different document templates were created and used for the four different test input
types, but no analysis was made of their success or failure as extraction tools. To
acquire information about this subject, one might run the same documents through
the extractor using different templates. For example, the same inputs can be analyzed
using one general template, and then analyzed using the template that fits their
document type. If performance significantly improves, this would indicate that the
templates are a positive addition to the AutoExtractor.
49
Chapter 7
Conclusions
I began the task of creating the AutoExtractor as a straightforward path to a well
defined goal. As the project comes to a close, however, it has become clear to me
that the AutoExtractor is still in a stage of infancy. The list of augmentation, testing,
and analysis that remains to be done grows longer and longer even as I attempt to
implement it.
Luckily, the goal of this project was not to create the perfect summarizer. Engineers much greater than myself have tried this and failed. Rather, my goal was
to create a working summarizer that functioned well enough for its purpose, while
continuing to broaden my own knowledge and experience in the field of Artificial
Intelligence. I feel that I have accomplished this goal.
7.1
Principles Discovered
In the course of my work with the AutoExtractor, I have grown in my knowledge of
artificial intelligence. The following sections will discuss some of the principles that I
have discovered or realized anew.
50
7.1.1
Variety Causes Complexity
One of the more frustrating principles that I discovered is that the tasks that are the
most intuitive to a human are often the most difficult to implement.
For example, one of the first pieces of code I attempted to write was a document
parser. I had decided to write one myself so that it would be very flexible and conform
to my exact specifications. I was impatient to finish this subgoal, and continue on to
what I considered to be the "meat" of the project. I was surprised to discover that
I had begun a formidable task. Since there are no limits to the input types to the
extractor, there is also no limit in the variety of formats that the parser must be able
to recognize. I found it very difficult to accurately separate the text into sections and
paragraphs and correctly differentiate headings and titles from headers, footers, and
lists. Parsing the documents, which is an almost effortless task for a human, became
one of the most challenging aspects of the project.
As this little task grew to monumentous proportions, I realized that there are
some things that a computer just is not suited to do. Specifically, it is very difficult
to perform a task with a great deal of variation and noise. This is a principle that
continued to come back and haunt me throughout the project.
7.1.2
The Importance of Knowledge
At the outset, I viewed this project as a simple piece of code that would be complete
once written. I have since learned that the code itself is merely a structure upon
which the real AutoExtractor must be built.
The power of the extractor is not in the mechanics of the code that was written,
but in the information that is gained through running and testing the code. Humans
utilize a bed of information about documents and syntax that is vast in comparison
to what is encapsulated in, for instance, an AutoExtractor document template. To
create a truly versatile and accurate extractor, the knowledge that a human has must
somehow be collected and stored quickly and accessibly [8].
In the case of the AutoExtractor, a great deal of knowledge could be gained
51
through more extensive testing and/or the implementation of an automatic learning
algorithm.
7.2
Future Work
Through my studies and through the helpful suggestions of others, it has become
apparent to me that there are many ways that the AutoExtractor could be augmented.
Although it is not completely clear that these augmentations would have a positive
effect on the system as a whole, they are at least worthy of experimentation.
7.2.1
Improving Upon Word Occurrence Statistics
One of the techniques used in the AutoExtractor to determine whether a sentence
should be extracted is the similarity in word occurrence statistics between the sentence
and the document (see section 4.2.1.) This technique is widely utilized both in the
task of extracting and for many other tasks. Therefore, there are many permutations
and additions to this technique that may improve upon the current accuracy of the
AutoExtractor. A few of these improvements are listed below.
Matching Summary and Document Statistics
The test used to determine whether a sentence should be extracted is the similarity in
word occurrence between the sentence and the document as a whole. In other words,
this technique attempts to make each individual sentence in the summary similar in
word content to the document. There is another, more complex way of extracting
sentences using occurrence statistics. Instead of matching each individual sentence
with the document, this other technique attempts to match the overall summary
statistics with that of the document.
The implementation of this technique is straightforward.
The first sentence is
extracted as usual. The second sentence, however, is not simply compared to the
document word occurrence statistics. Instead, the second sentence is selected by how
well its word occurrence, when combined with the first sentence, matches with the
52
total document statistics. The third sentence is selected by how well its word occurrence, when combined with the first two sentences, matches that of the document.
This process continues until the total number of sentences to be extracted have been
chosen.
The advantage of this this technique is that the summary created is more likely to
contain a wide variety of important topics than if the sentences were all chosen based
upon the most prevalent items in the text. For example, the majority of the document
might deal with one topic, but a significant portion might focus on a a different issue.
If the sentences chosen are always required to match with the document as a whole,
they will always be related to the most common topic in the document. They might
be very repetitive, and they may not touch upon other minor, yet significant, topics in
the document. When sentences are compared as an addition to the existing summary
instead of independently, however, a topic that has thus far been unrepresented in the
summary may be included to satisfy that portion of the document's word occurrence
statistics.
The primary reason that this technique has not been implemented in the AutoExtractor is that I suspect the effect of the word occurrence aspect of the extractor is
too insignifcant to cause the problems mentioned above. I have found, in the process
of developing the AutoExtractor, that the word occurrence statistics have a relatively
small influence on the selection of a sentence for extraction. Therefore, the slight
difference in word occurrence similarity between a major topic and a minor topic in
the document would not have a significant impact on the total score for that sentence.
While I could not imagine why using this improved word occurrence technique
would have a negative impact on the performance of the system, it would require
added complexity and computation. The accuracy of the document summary must
increase significantly to justify the additional work.
Word Weighting
One of the more difficult aspects of word occurrence statistics is selecting which words
are more significant that others. The key words in the document must be given high
53
importance, and other random words that are unrelated to the topic should have a low
impact on the decision making process. Some systems use extensive semantic analysis
to determine the important noun phrases used in each sentence [1].
Then those
words are given a higher weight in the word array. This technique, however, is very
computationally intensive, and usually does not result in significant improvements in
accuracy [4].
In addition to putting more emphasis on individual words, it is also common to
weight certain sections of the document that are likely to contain significant information. For instance, the first few paragraphs of a newspaper article almost always
contain all vital information in the article. Therefore, the words in that portion of
the article can be given a larger weight during the word occurrence calculations.
Finally, a related but different technique involves doing analysis on the entire body
of documents in addition to the document in question. Words that occur frequently
in the body of documents are given less significance while words that are unique to
the present document are weighted heavily. This is a way of determining which words
in the document are vital specifically to the document.
Taking Roots to Categorize Words
Another common way to make word occurrence techniques more accurate is to use a
program to take the root of any word that is not already in root form. Therefore, the
the program will acknowledge that two words that do not look exactly the same are
nevertheless referring to the same concept: for instance, both "routing" and "router"
would be reduced to the same root word, "rout". This technique does occasionally
have undesirable effects, however. For instance, some words may appear to be in a
reducible form to the program, but are not actually reducible. For instance, the last
name "Carter" would be reduced to the root word "cart" [11]. For simplicity's sake,
no root words are taken in this implementation. It would be possible to add this
feature in the future to see if it would have a significant impact on performance.
54
7.2.2
Adding Additional Sentence Structure Factors
There are several aspects of sentence structure that the AutoExtractor does not process at this time. Some of these, however, might be very important in determining
whether a sentence should be extracted. For example, a sentence that contains several
clauses may be more likely to be a good summarizing sentence in some situations.
While the parser does not detect information like commas or the word "and", these
would be simple modifications that may greatly increase the ability of the extractor
with certain input types.
7.2.3
Adding Negative Keywords and Phrases
One important aspect of the AutoExtractor is the detection of key words or phrases
that may indicate the presence of a good summarizing sentence. In the same respect,
it may be just as helpful to search for negative words or phrases that indicate that
a sentence is not a good sentence to extract. In fact, some studies show that the
negative keyphrase method can eliminate as much as 90 percent of the sentences of
the document [2].
This would also be a simple augmentation to add to the AutoExtractor. It would
require the addition of a new sentence characteristic that is assigned a higher value
the fewer negative key phrases the sentence contains.
7.2.4
Altering Templates Through Automatic Learning Algorithms
At present, the AutoExtractor templates are created by hand. The user must use his
or her best judgement to assign characteristic weights and value scores to conform
to a certain type of desired input and output. While a user can assign these values
with an often surprising amount of success, it is effectively impossible for a person to
guess the exact combination of numbers that would produce the best possible output
for that document type.
For this reason, altering the templates using an automatic learning algorithm
55
would be a very helpful addition to the AutoExtractor. Instead of assigning the template numbers, the program would be given training documents until it automatically
converged on the best number combination.
In order to use learning algorithms, however, there must be a standard against
which to compare the program output. If there is no way to determine how "good"
a summary is, there is no feedback mechanism that the program can use to improve
its performance.
Unfortunately, determining the goodness of a summary is not a
trivial task. There are many possible combinations of sentences that can form a
good summary, and there are many different types of summaries. Evaluating the
goodness of a summary is an extremely subjective task. This task must be performed
automatically, however, in order for the learning algorithm to receive the volume of
training data it needs.
An Automatic Learning Implementation
A related project, which used a technique very similar to the one discussed above,
generated its feedback by analyzing technical reports that already contained abstracts.
If the summarizer returned a sentence that was similar enough to a sentence in the
abstract, that sentence was said to be a good choice.
Automatic Evaluation Disadvantages
There are a few disadvantages to this procedure. First, the correlation between the
contents of the author-created abstract and the quality of extracted sentences is not
concrete. Simply because a sentence is not included in the abstract does not mean
that it is not a good summarizing sentence.
An already difficult learning process
would then be further complicated by the false evaluation of extraction results.
Secondly, the comparison of the abstract and an extracted sentence is a somewhat
complex. It is possible to simply look for a sentence in the abstract that is identical
to the extracted sentence, but sentences in the abstract are seldom exactly identical
to sentences in the document. They are frequently either combinations or segments
of the original sentences. In order to evaluate the extracted sentence with any degree
56
of accuracy, the comparison method must be capable of recognizing sentences that
are only a part or partially contained in an abstract sentence. This is a delicate task
which is somewhat subjective.
Finally, in order for this technique to be possible, there must be a testing set
available with an abstract (or the equivalent) for each document. This would clearly
not always be the case. For instance, in the testing set that was described in the
previous chapter, there would have been no way to find a testing set for the article,
documentation, or transcribed speech documents.
As inconvenient and limiting as the this automatic way of determining the quality
of an extracted sentence may be, it is still preferable to the alternative. Instead, a
human operator would have to hand-evaluate the fitness of the extracted sentences. A
prohibitively large amount of manual labor would be necessary to process the volume
of test documents needed to train the system.
57
Appendix A
Testing Instructions
Instructions:
You have been given four documents. Your job is to choose sentences out of
these documents that you think are good summarizing sentences. This means
that they would be good to include in an abstract about that document. You
cannot choose parts of a sentence; you must choose the entire sentence.
Please do not choose any titles or headings. Use your best judgement.
There are two numbers written on the top of each document with a slash
CIRCLE that many
between them: x/y. Look at the number on the left (x).
sentences that you think are the BEST summarizing sentences in the document.
Now look at the number on right (y). UNDERLINE that many more sentences that
are also good summarizing sentences (but not as good as the circled ones).
When you are finished, you should have x sentences circled and y sentences
underlined. (Do not underline sentences that you have already circled.)
NOTE: Some of the documents are rather long; you do NOT have to read and
understand the entire document! Feel free to skim things that you are
pretty sure don't contain any significant sentences. Reading and marking
a long paper should take no longer than 5-10 minutes.
Please return these to me by FRIDAY MAY 14th. You can either slip them
under the door of my office (NE43-832), send them to me through
interdepartmental mail (Irene Wilson, Ashdown #402A), or give them to
58
me directly.
Thank you thank you thank you!
59
Appendix B
Code
B.1
Summ.lisp
Irene Wilson
AI lab
Knowledge-Based Collaboration Project
IW
created: 7-22-98
2-4-99 IW
altered:
Summ.lisp
This file contains all the master calls for the document summarization;
all functions are accessed (directly or indirectly) from this file.
(setq VERBOSE 'nil)
(setq VERBOSE-RES t)
(setq COUNT t)
; ; This is the main function that runs the auto-summarization program.
(defun auto-sum (file-name &key numb-sents percent-sents user-doc-type)
(let*
((percent-sentences (or percent-sents 5))
;; read in file (found in parse.lisp)
(file (read-file file-name))
capture all information of the file into a bunch of objects
found in parse.lisp
(doc-structure (parse-string file))
create a list containing the characteristics of each sentence, consed
with the characteristics of the document
(doc-and-sent-chars (get-doc-and-sent-chars doc-structure))
;; classify the document type based on the document characteristics
(doc-type (or (intern (string-upcase user-doc-type))
(get-doc-type (car doc-and-sent-chars))))
60
using the formula for the document type, calculate the fitness of
each sentence as a topic sentence
(sentence-ratings (make-sentence-rankings (cdr doc-and-sent-chars)
(get-template doc-type))))
return the n percent best topic sentences from the document
(get-best-sentences sentence-ratings
doc-and-sent-chars
percent-sentences
numb-sents)))
;;This function will analyze the characteristics of the document to determine
the document type. At the moment, we will just assume it is a report.
(defun get-doc-type (doc-characteristics)
'doc)
;;returns a vector of the best rated sentences with their ratings
(defun get-best-sentences (sentence-ratings
doc-and-sent-chars
percent-sentences
numb-sents)
sort by highest rating
(let ((sorted-stats (sort
(rank-vector sentence-ratings)
*'(lambda (senti sent2) (> (sent-rating (cdr senti))
(sent-rating (cdr sent2))))))
(best-sentences (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t))
(number-sentences
(if numb-sents
numb-sents
(* percent-sentences (/ (num-sentences (car doc-and-sent-chars))
100)))))
(when COUNT
(let ((num-sent (num-sentences (car doc-and-sent-chars))))
(format t "~A~A~A::~A::~A~A" #\Return #\Return num-sent
(- (log (- (log num-sent 2) 2) 2) 1)
(- (log num-sent 2) 2)
#\Return)))
assemble vector of best sentences + ratings
(loop for x from 0 to (- number-sentences 1)
do (let* ((text (sentence-text (pointer-to-sent
(aref (cdr doc-and-sent-chars)
(car (svref sorted-stats x))))))
(sent-rating-info (cdr (svref sorted-stats x)))
(rating (sent-rating sent-rating-info)))
(vector-push-extend (cons text rating) best-sentences 10)
(when VERBOSE-RES
(format t "A~A" *\Return *\Return)
(format t "A:
~A" (+ x 1) text)
(loop for y from 0 to (- (length (chars-used sent-rating-info)) 1)
do (let ((char-assgn-info
(aref (chars-used sent-rating-info) y))
(char-val-info
(aref (val-of-chars-used sent-rating-info) y)))
(format t "~A
~A: ~A ==> ~A x ~A = ~A"
*\Return
(car char-assgn-info)
(cadr char-assgn-info)
(car char-val-info)
(cadr char-val-info)
(caddr char-val-info)))))))
best-sentences))
61
appends an index to each sentence-rating so we don't lose the original
order after sorting
(defun rank-vector (vector)
(let ((rank -1))
(flet ((rank-element (element)
(setq rank (+ rank 1))
(cons rank element)))
(map 'vector *'rank-element vector))))
B.2
Parse.lisp
Irene Wilson
AI lab
Knowledge-Based Collaboration Project
created: 7-23-98 IW
altered: 2-11-99 IW
Parse.lisp
This file contains a library of functions that will take a file
and parse its contents into several objects that contain all
interesting information about that document
(setq kill-returns 'nil)
(setq indents 'nil)
This function takes a file name and returns a string of text that
represents the contents of the file. Also, if the format of the file needs
to be changed, it changes it to an acceptible format.
(defun read-file (filename)
(let ((prev-line-punc 'nil)
(file
(concatenate 'string "Grant-HD1:Users:merri:testing:documentation:formatted:"
(labels ((reformat-with-returns (line string-stream)
(cond ((not (position-if *'not-space line))
(write-line "" string-stream)
(if prev-line-punc
(write-line '" string-stream)))
((and prev-line-punc (tab-p line))
(write-line "" string-stream)
(write-string (concatenate 'string line " ') string-stream))
(t
(write-string (concatenate 'string line " ') string-stream)
(if (and (not indents) (< (length line) 55))
(write-line "" string-stream)))))
(ends-with-punct (line)
(let ((ending-char (position-if-not #'whitespace-p line :from-end t)))
(if (and ending-char (find (aref line ending-char) '(#\. #\? *\!)
(setq prev-line-punc t)
(setq prev-line-punc 'nil)))))
(with-open-file (file-stream file)
(with-output-to-string (string-stream)
(loop for line = (read-line file-stream nil nil)
while line
do (progn (cond (kill-returns
62
filename)))
(reformat-with-returns line string-stream))
(t
(write-line line string-stream)))
(ends-with-punct line))))))))
(defun tab-p (line)
(or (eq (aref line 0) #\Tab)
(and (eq (aref line 0) #\Space)
(eq (aref line 1) #\Space))))
;;This
function takes a string and parses it into a full document
paragraphs, and sentences.
object, including sections, titles,
It's not particularly intelligent.
(defun parse-string (text)
(let (;; the big overall object that represents the entire document
holds all other objects as memebers of arrays
(my-document (make-document))
;; This is the index into the text string where the current word begins
(word-start 0)
;; This is the index where the current word ends
(word-end 0)
;; This is the index where the next item ends
(stop-loc 0)
;; This is the index where the next item begins
(next-item (or (my-position-if #'(lambda (x) (not (eq x *\Return))) text)
(- (length text) 1)))
This is the index where the current sentence begins
(sentence-start 0))
(labels ((parse-loop ()
(loop
;; while we haven't reached the end of our text string:
while next-item
;; look at the next item in the text string and decide what it is.
do (case (next-chunk)
(word (parse-word))
(sentence (end-sentence))
(sect-title (add-sect-title))
(par-title (add-par-title))
(paragraph (finish-paragraph))
(section (finish-section))
(nothing (continue-parse))
(fragment (fragment-sentence))
(done (return))
(otherwise (format t "nextchunk returned illegal value") (break))))
(clean-up my-document))
(next-chunk ()
Here I am checking to see if the next item in the text is a return.
If so, this can represent a new paragraph, a new section, a title,
or an error.
(cond
((eq (aref text next-item) #\Return)
;; check to see if the return was in the middle of a sentence or not.
(cond
((beginning-of-sentence-p my-document)
;; One return is a new paragraph; more than one a new section.
(setq stop-loc (my-position-if #'not-space text
:start (+ next-item 1)
:out-of-bounds-check 't))
if text is finished, return
(if (not stop-loc)
'done
(if (eq (aref text stop-loc) #\Return)
'section
paragraph)))
63
If a return is found in the middle of a sentence, this could
either represent a title or a sentence fragement.
(t (if (good-sect-title-loc-p my-document)
'sect-title
(if (good-par-title-loc-p my-document)
'par-title
'fragment)))))
stop-loc holds
Next item is not a return; let's see what it is!
the next character of interest in the string.
(t (setq stop-loc
(position-if #'(lambda (x) (find x '(*\Space #\. #\? #\! *\Return)))
text
:start next-item))
(cond
(stop-loc
(let ((stopper (aref text stop-loc)))
;; analyze next significant charcter
(case stopper
(#\Space 'word)
a period indicates the end of the sentence unless it's a
decimal... abbreviations will screw up parser.
(#\. (if (end-of-sent-period-p)
'sentence
'nothing))
((#\? #\!) 'sentence)
(#\Return (if (good-sect-title-loc-p my-document)
'sect-title
(if (good-par-title-loc-p my-document)
'par-title
'fragment)))
(otherwise (format t "bad stopper")))))
we have reached the end of the document without finishing the last
sentence.
(t
(setq stop-loc (length text))
'fragment)))))
When each of these situations has been detected, move around the
necessary text pointers and call the appropriate method of document
object.
(parse-word ()
(setq word-end stop-loc)
(setq next-item (position-if #'not-space text :start stop-loc))
(add-word my-document (get-word))
(setq word-start next-item))
(end-sentence ()
(setq word-end stop-loc)
(setq next-item
(my-position-if #'(lambda (x) (not (find x '(#\Space #\. #\? #\!))))
text
:start (+ stop-loc 1)
:out-of-bounds-check 't))
(add-word my-document (get-word))
(end-sent-doc my-document (subseq text sentence-start next-item))
(setq word-start next-item)
(setq sentence-start next-item))
(finish-paragraph 0
(setq next-item stop-loc)
(setq word-start next-item)
(setq sentence-start next-item)
(end-par-doc my-document))
(finish-section 0
(setq next-item (position-if #'(lambda
text
64
(x) (not (find x '(#\Space #\Return))))
:start stop-loc))
(setq word-start next-item)
(setq sentence-start next-item)
(end-sect-doc my-document))
(fragment-sentence ()
;; Pick up the last word of the fragment sentence (if needed)
(cond
((< next-item stop-loc)
(setq word-end stop-loc)
(add-word my-document (get-word))
(setq next-item (my-position-if #'not-space text
:start (+ stop-loc 1)
:out-of-bounds-check 't)))
(t
(setq next-item (my-position-if #'not-space text
:start (+ next-item 1)
:out-of-bounds-check 't))))
(fragment-sent-doc my-document (subseq text sentence-start next-item))
(setq word-start next-item)
(setq sentence-start next-item))
(continue-parse 0
(setq next-item (+ next-item 1)))
(add-par-title ()
(add-title 'par))
(add-sect-title ()
(add-title 'sect))
(add-title (unit)
;; clean up last word of title if necessary
(when (< next-item stop-loc)
(setq word-end stop-loc)
(add-word my-document (get-word))
(setq next-item stop-loc))
(setq next-item
(my-position-if #'(lambda (x) (not (find x '(#\Space #\Return))))
text
:start (+ next-item 1)
:out-of-bounds-check 't))
(if (eq unit 'sect)
(add-sect-title-doc my-document (subseq text sentence-start next-item))
(add-par-title-doc my-document (subseq text sentence-start next-item)))
(setq word-start next-item)
(setq sentence-start next-item))
(end-of-sent-period-p ()
(not (or (digit-char-p (aref text (+ stop-loc 1)))
(abbreviation-p
(subseq text
(or (+ 1 (position-if #'(lambda (x) (find x '(#\Return
#\Space
#\. *\Tab)))
text
:end stop-loc
:from-end t))
0)
stop-oc)))))
(abbreviation-p (str)
(find str '("Mr" "Ms" "Mrs" "A" "B" "C" "D" "E" "F" "G" "H" "I" "J" "K" "L"
"M" "N" "O" "P' "Q" "R" "S" "T" "U" "V' "W" "X" "Y" "Z" "Inc"
"St" "Ltd" "Corp" "Kan" "Mo" "1" "2" "3" "4" "5" "6" "7" "8" "9"
"0") :test #'equal))
(get-word 0
65
(string-trim '(#\, #\: #\" #\; *\- #\) *\()
(subseq text word-start word-end))))
(parse-loop)
my-document)))
B.3
Objects.lisp
;; Irene Wilson
;; AI lab
Knowledge-Based Collaboration Project
7-27-98 IW
created:
altered: 11-18-98 IW
1-4-99 IW
;;Objects.lisp
This file contains all the object definitions and member functions
All of the significant
of the automatic document summarization project.
Later, these objects
data about the document is stored in these objects.
will be analyzed to see which sentence objects are the most likely topic
sentences.
A document object contains all interesting information about a body of text.
(defclass document ()
(;; This vector stores all of the significant words in the document
(hash-strings
:accessor hash-strings
:initform (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t :element-type 'string))
This vector stores how many times the word in that location of the
hash-strings vector appears in the document
(word-vector
:accessor word-vector
:initform (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t :element-type 'integer))
;; This hashtable takes in a word and returns its location in the word-vector.
(keyword-hash
:accessor keyword-hash
:initform (make-hash-table :size 300 :rehash-size 100 :test 'equalp))
;; ??? The title of the document
(heading
:accessor heading
:initform (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t :element-type 'sentence))
of all the keyphrases that will be searched for in the document
;; This is a list
(keyphrase-list :accessor keyphrase-list :initform (get-phrases "keyphrases"))
of keyphrases that have been found in the document.
;; This is a list
(keyphrase-status :accessor keyphrase-status)
;; This is an array that points to all the sections in the document
(sections :accessor sections :initform (make-sect-array))
;; contains total number of sentences and fragments
(num-of-sentences :accessor num-of-sentences :initform 0)
;; contians total number of words
(num-of-words :accessor num-of-words :initform 0)))
This is a section object; represents a section of the document
(defclass section ()
((;; This is a pointer to all of the paragraph objects in the section
66
paragraphs
:accessor paragraphs
:initform (make-par-array))
;; if the section has a title, it will be stored here
(title :accessor title :initform 'nil)))
This is a paragraph object; represents a paragraph in the document
(defclass paragraph ()
((;; this is a pointer to all of the sentnece objects in the section
sentences
:accessor sentences
:initform (make-sent-array))
(title :accessor title :initform 'nil)))
This is a sentence object; represents a sentence in the document
(defclass sentence C)
(;; this string holds the exact text of the sentence.
(sentence-text :accessor sentence-text)
;; this is the the number of the sentence in the document
(sentence-num :accessor sentence-num)
;; this is true if this is a fragment sentence; false otherwise
(fragment :accessor fragment-p :initform 'nil)
this vector has a location for each significant word in the sentence;
the value of a location is the number of times that word appears
(word-vector :accessor word-vector)
;; this contains the number and type of keyphrases in the sentence
(keyphrases :accessor keyphrases)
;; this value is the total number of words in the sentence
(num-of-words :accessor num-of-words :initform 0)))
This function creates and initializes a document object
(defun make-document ()
(let ((doc (make-instance 'document)))
;; initializes the first sentence in the document
(initialize-sent doc (get-curr-sent doc))
creates a location in the keyphrase-status vector for every element
in the keyphrase-list vector. This is so we can store how many
times each keyphrase appears.
(setf (keyphrase-status doc) (make-array (length (keyphrase-list doc))
:initial-element 0
:element-type 'integer))
doc))
This function creates and initializes a section array; called when document
first created
(defun make-sect-array ()
(let ((sect-array (make-array 0
:adjustable t
:fill-pointer t
:element-type 'section)))
(vector-push-extend (make-instance 'section) sect-array 5)
sect-array))
This function creates and initializes a paragraph array; called when a section
is created
(defun make-par-array ()
(let ((par-array (make-array 0
:adjustable t
:fill-pointer t
:element-type 'paragraph)))
(vector-push-extend (make-instance 'paragraph) par-array 5)
par-array))
This function creates and initializes a sentence array; called when a paragraph
is created.
(defun make-sent-array ()
(let ((sent-array (make-array 0
:adjustable t
:fill-pointer t
67
(vector-push-extend
sent-array))
:element-type 'sentence)))
(make-instance 'sentence) sent-array 8)
This function initializes a sentence object; sets the size of the keyphrases
and word-vector object based upon the current document info.
(defmethod initialize-sent ((doc document) sent)
(setf (keyphrases sent) (make-array (length (keyphrase-list doc))
:element-type 'integer
:initial-element 0))
(setf (word-vector sent)
(make-array (length (word-vector doc))
:adjustable t
:fill-pointer t
:element-type 'integer
:initial-element 0))
sent)
These are for easy reference to all the current parts of the document
(defmethod get-curr-sent ((doc document))
(let ((curr-par (get-curr-par doc)))
(aref (sentences curr-par) (- (num-of-sentences curr-par) 1))))
(defmethod get-curr-par ((doc document))
(let ((curr-sect (get-curr-sect doc)))
(get-curr-par curr-sect)))
(defmethod get-curr-par ((sect section))
(aref (paragraphs sect) (- (num-of-paragraphs sect) 1)))
(defmethod get-curr-sect ((doc document))
(aref (sections doc) (- (num-of-sections doc) 1)))
(defmethod get-curr-sent ((sect section))
(get-curr-sent (aref (paragraphs sect) (-
(num-of-paragraphs
sect)
(defmethod get-curr-sent ((par paragraph))
(aref (sentences par) (- (num-of-sentences par) 1)))
(defmethod get-curr-sent ((par paragraph))
(aref (sentences par) (- (num-of-sentences par) 1)))
These are for adding to the current document structure
(defmethod add-word ((doc document) word)
(setf (num-of-words doc) (+ (num-of-words doc) 1))
(add-word-sent (get-curr-sent doc) doc word))
(defmethod end-sent-doc ((doc document) sentence-text)
(let ((curr-sent (get-curr-sent doc)))
(setf (sentence-text curr-sent) sentence-text)
(set-vector (keyphrase-status doc) 0)
(setf (num-of-sentences doc) (+ (num-of-sentences doc)
(setf (sentence-num curr-sent) (num-of-sentences doc))
(end-sent-par (get-curr-par doc) doc sentence-text)))
1))
(defmethod end-par-doc ((doc document))
(end-par-sect (get-curr-sect doc) doc))
(defmethod end-sect-doc ((doc document))
;; pop off the new, unused paragraph from the old section
(vector-pop (sentences (get-curr-par doc)))
(vector-push-extend (make-instance 'section) (sections doc)
(initialize-sent doc (get-curr-sent doc))
(print "ended a section"))
(defmethod fragment-sent-doc ((doc document) sentence-text)
(let ((curr-sent (get-curr-sent doc)))
(setf (fragment-p curr-sent) 't)
68
10)
1))))
(print "(fragment)")
(end-sent-doc doc sentence-text)))
;; add a title to the next section in the document
(defmethod add-sect-title-doc ((doc document) sentence-text)
;; get the next sentence object in the document
(let ((sent (get-curr-sent doc)))
(setf (sentence-text sent) sentence-text)
if there is only 1 section in the document so far, this "title" will
be saved as part of a "document heading" chunk.
(if (eq (num-of-sections doc) 1)
(vector-push-extend sent (heading doc) 5)
(add-sect-title (get-curr-sect doc) doc))
(when VERBOSE
(print "added a section title")
sentence-text))
(format t "~A~X"
(abort-sent (get-curr-par doc) doc)))
add a title to the next paragraph in the document
(defmethod add-par-title-doc ((doc document) sentence-text)
;; get the next sentence object in the document
(setf (sentence-text (get-curr-sent doc)) sentence-text)
(add-par-title (get-curr-par doc) doc)
(when VERBOSE
(print "added a paragraph title")
(format t "~A~\%" sentence-text))
(abort-sent (get-curr-par doc) doc))
(defmethod add-sect-title ((sect section) (doc document))
(setf (title sect) (get-curr-sent sect)))
(defmethod add-par-title ((par paragraph) (doc document))
(setf (title par) (get-curr-sent par)))
(defmethod end-par-sect ((sect section) (doc document))
;; pop off the new, unused sentence from the old paragraph
(vector-pop (sentences (get-curr-par sect)))
;; add on the new paragraph
(vector-push-extend (make-instance 'paragraph) (paragraphs sect) 10)
(initialize-sent doc (get-curr-sent sect))
(print "ended a paragraph"))
(defmethod end-sent-par ((par paragraph)
(start-sent par doc)
(when VERBOSE
(print "ended a sentence")
(format t "~A~\%" sentence-text)))
doc sentence-text)
(defmethod start-sent ((par paragraph) (doc document))
(vector-push-extend (initialize-sent doc (make-instance 'sentence))
(sentences par)
20))
(defmethod add-word-sent ((sent sentence) doc word)
(update-keyphrases doc sent word)
(setf (num-of-words sent) (+ 1 (num-of-words sent)))
(add-word-stats doc sent word))
(format t "~A~X"
word))
(defmethod abort-sent ((par paragraph)
(vector-pop (sentences par))
(start-sent par doc))
(doc document))
;;looks at newly added word to see if it brings us closer to identifying
a keyphrase
(defmethod update-keyphrases ((doc document) (sent sentence) wrd)
;; for each keyphrase
69
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length (keyphrase-list doc)) 1)
do (let (;; this is the actual phrase
(phrase (aref (keyphrase-list doc) x))
;; gets the number of words in the phrase already identified
(stat (aref (keyphrase-status doc) x)))
if the next word in the document equals the next word in the
phrase
(if (equalp wrd (aref phrase stat))
;; check to see if you have completed the phrase
(cond ((eq stat (- (length phrase) 1))
(setf (aref (keyphrases sent) x)
(+ (aref (keyphrases sent) x) 1))
(setf (aref (keyphrase-status doc) x) 0))
(t (setf (aref (keyphrase-status doc) x) (+ 1 stat))))
phrase was not found. reset its status
(setf (aref (keyphrase-status doc) x) 0)))))
new word is a "keyword", record its use in the document and sentence
keyword statistics vectors
(defmethod add-word-stats ((doc document) (sent sentence) wrd)
(when (keyword-p wrd)
(let ((hash-val (gethash wrd (keyword-hash doc))))
;; if the word has not previously been found in the document
(cond ((eq hash-val NIL)
;; add word to keyword vector
(setf (gethash wrd (keyword-hash doc)) (hash-size doc))
;; add word to both document and sentence keyword vectors
(vector-push-extend 1 (word-vector sent) 10)
(vector-push-extend 1 (word-vector doc) 10)
(vector-push-extend wrd (hash-strings doc)))
;; else keyword is already in document; just increment the occurances
if
(t
(setf (aref (word-vector sent) hash-val)
(+ 1 (aref (word-vector sent) hash-val)))
(setf (aref (word-vector doc) hash-val)
(+ 1 (aref (word-vector doc) hash-val))))))))
check to see if we are currently beginning a new sentence
(defmethod beginning-of-sentence-p ((doc document))
(if (eq (num-of-words (get-curr-sent doc)) 0) 't nil))
location
check to see if this is a possible section title
(defmethod good-sect-title-loc-p ((doc document))
we are at a good title location if there is no title already, and we are
not in the middle of a section or a paragraph
(if (and (not (title (get-curr-sect doc)))
(eq (length (paragraphs (get-curr-sect doc))) 1)
(eq (length (sentences (get-curr-par doc))) 1))
nil))
check to see if this is a possible paragraph title location
(defmethod good-par-title-loc-p ((doc document))
we are at a good title location if there is no title already, and we are
not in the middle of a paragraph
(if (and (not (title (get-curr-par doc)))
(not (eq (length (paragraphs (get-curr-sect doc))) 1))
(eq (length (sentences (get-curr-par doc))) 1))
't
nil))
clean up document structure
(defmethod clean-up ((doc document))
get rid of all extra sections, paragraphs, and sentences on the end of the
document structure.
(vector-pop (sentences (get-curr-par doc)))
70
(when (eq (length (sentences (get-curr-par doc))) 0)
(vector-pop (paragraphs (get-curr-sect doc)))
(when (eq (length (paragraphs (get-curr-sect doc))) 0)
(vector-pop (sections doc)))))
count number of unique keywords in the document
(defmethod hash-size ((doc document))
(hash-table-count (keyword-hash doc)))
some simple utilities
(defmethod num-of-sentences ((par paragraph))
(length (sentences par)))
(defmethod num-of-paragraphs ((sect section))
(length (paragraphs sect)))
(defmethod num-of-sections ((doc document))
(length (sections doc)))
These are for printing the document structure.
(defmethod print-doc ((doc document))
(print "doc")
(map 'vector *'print-sect (sections doc)))
(defmethod print-sect ((sect section))
(print " sect")
(map 'vector #'print-par (paragraphs sect)))
(defmethod print-par ((par paragraph))
(print " par")
(map 'vector *'print-sent (sentences par)))
(defmethod print-sent ((sent sentence))
(print "
sent"))
B.4
Char.lisp
Irene Wilson
AI lab
Knowledge-Based Collaboration Project
created: 8-10-98 IW
altered: 8-11-98 IW
1-13-99 IW
Char.lisp
contains code that analyzes a document object to calculate
This file
and store all valuable information in document and sentence statistic
objects.
(defclass document-stat 0
((document-structure :accessor document-structure)
(ave-sent-doc-similarity :accessor ave-sent-doc-similarity
(doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev
:accessor doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev
:initform 0)
71
:initform 0)
(ave-word-length :accessor ave-word-length)
(ave-sent-length :accessor ave-sent-length)
(number-of-titles :accessor number-of-titles)
(num-compound-sents :accessor num-compound-sents)
(num-sentences :accessor num-sentences)
(title-content :accessor title-content)))
(defclass section-stat()
((section-loc :accessor
section-loc)))
(defclass paragraph-stat()
((paragraph-loc :accessor paragraph-loc)))
(defclass sentence-stat C)
((sent-char-list :accessor sent-char-list :initform (make-charact-list))
(sent-cont-list :accessor sent-cont-list :initform (make-contain-list))
(pointer-to-sent :accessor pointer-to-sent)
(title-content :accessor title-content)))
creates and returns a characteristics object that contains all important
info about the document
(defun get-doc-and-sent-chars (doc-structure)
(let ((doc-stat (make-instance 'document-stat))
;; contains a "characeristic object" for each sentence in the document
(sent-chars-array (make-array (num-of-sentences doc-structure)
:element-type 'sentence-stat))
this is a place to save information about the sentences that are
not needed in the final analysis
(scratchpad (make-array (num-of-sentences doc-structure)))
;; load all the key-title-phrases to search for the titles
(key-title-phrases (get-phrases "title-phrases"))
(chars-array-size 0)
;; this is for the title-contents info
(curr-sect-index 0))
(labels
;; assimilate all info and objects in this section of the document
((analyze-section (document index curr-sent-info)
(let ((section (aref (sections document) index)))
;; save this for later use in title-contents
(setq curr-sect-index index)
add all section information into curr-sent-info (this info will
be copied into all sent-char objects in this section)
(add-sect-info document index curr-sent-info)
;; analyze each paragraph in the section
(loop for y from 0 to (- (length (paragraphs section)) 1)
do (analyze-paragraph section y (copy-of curr-sent-info)))))
assimilate all info and objects in this paragraph of the document
(analyze-paragraph (section index curr-sent-info)
(let ((paragraph (aref (paragraphs section) index)))
;; add all paragraph info into curr-sent-info
(add-par-info section index curr-sent-info)
;; analyze all sentences in the paragraph
(loop for z from 0 to (- (length (sentences paragraph)) 1)
do (analyze-sentence paragraph z (copy-of curr-sent-info)))))
assimilate all info in this sentence into curr-sent-info
(analyze-sentence (paragraph index curr-sent-info)
(add-sent-info paragraph index curr-sent-info))
gets all info that can be gotten directly from the document
(add-doc-info (doc)
(setf (ave-sent-length doc-stat) (/ (num-of-words doc)
(num-of-sentences doc)))
(setf (num-sentences doc-stat) (num-of-sentences doc))
;; make empty array for specials titles found during sentence analysis
72
(setf (title-content doc-stat)
(make-array
(length (sections doc))
:initial-element 'nil)))
info that can be gotten directly from the section and adds
gets all
to curr-sent
(add-sect-info (doc sect-number curr-sent-info)
(let* ((curr-sect (aref (sections doc) sect-number))
(key-title-phrase (find-keytitle (title curr-sect))))
(case sect-number
(0 (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'section-loc 'first))
(1 (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'section-loc 'second))
((length (sections doc))
(set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'section-loc 'last))
(otherwise (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'section-loc 'body)))
(set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'title-content key-title-phrase)
(when key-title-phrase
(setf (aref (title-content doc-stat) sect-number)
key-title-phrase))))
gets all
info that can be gotten directly from the paragraph and adds
to curr-sent
(add-par-info (section par-number curr-sent-info)
(let ((curr-par (aref (paragraphs section) par-number)))
(case par-number
(0 (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'paragraph-loc 'first))
(1 (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'paragraph-loc 'second))
((length (paragraphs section))
(set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'paragraph-loc 'last))
(otherwise (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'paragraph-loc 'body)))
(if (not 0)
(let ((key-title-phrase (find-keytitle (title curr-par))))
(when key-title-phrase
(set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'title-content key-title-phrase)
(setf (aref (title-content doc-stat) curr-sect-index)
key-title-phrase))))))
gets all info from the sentence and adds it to curr-sent
(add-sent-info (paragraph sent-number curr-sent-info)
;; get sentence location in paragraph
(let ((sentence (aref (sentences paragraph) sent-number)))
(case sent-number
(0 (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'sentence-loc 'first))
(1 (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'sentence-loc 'second))
((length (sentences paragraph))
(set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'sentence-loc 'last))
(otherwise (set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'sentence-loc 'body)))
save a pointer into the sentence object (eek!)
(setf (pointer-to-sent curr-sent-info) sentence)
;; get (comparative) length of sentence
(cond ((> (num-of-words sentence) (ave-sent-length doc-stat))
(set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'sentence-length 'long))
((< (num-of-words sentence) 7)
(set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'sentence-length 'very-short))
(t
(set-sent-char curr-sent-info 'sentence-length 'short)))
save the doc-sentence keyword similarity in the scratchpad
(setf (aref scratchpad chars-array-size)
(dot-product (word-vector doc-structure)
(word-vector sentence)))
add the current similarity to the total document similarity
(to later calculate average)
(setf (ave-sent-doc-similarity doc-stat)
(+ (ave-sent-doc-similarity doc-stat)
(aref scratchpad chars-array-size)))
add presence of keyphrases
(let ((sent-keyphrases (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t)))
(loop
73
for poss-phrase from 0 to (- (length (keyphrases sentence)) 1)
do (when (not (= (aref (keyphrases sentence) poss-phrase) 0))
(let ((phrase-symbols
(map 'list
#'(lambda (x) (intern (string-upcase x)))
(aref (keyphrase-list doc-structure)
poss-phrase))))
(vector-push-extend phrase-symbols sent-keyphrases 2))))
(set-sent-cont curr-sent-info 'keyphrase-content sent-keyphrases))
add the current sent-info to the array!
(setf (aref sent-chars-array chars-array-size) curr-sent-info)
(setf chars-array-size (+ chars-array-size 1))))
(find-keytitle (title)
(if title
(find-phrase title key-title-phrases)
'nil))
looks to see if
there are any key-title-phrases
in the title
(find-phrase (sent phrases)
(let ((found-phrases (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t))
(parsed-sent (parse-line (sentence-text sent)))
(found-one 'nil))
(loop
for wrd from 0 to (- (length parsed-sent) 1)
do (loop
for phrase-index from 0 to (- (length phrases) 1)
do (if (eq (aref parsed-sent wrd)
(aref (aref phrases phrase-index) 0))
(let ((curr-phrase (aref phrases phrase-index)))
(unless (< (+ wrd (length curr-phrase))
(length parsed-sent))
(loop
for phrase-wrd from 0 to (length curr-phrase)
while (eq (aref parsed-sent (+ wrd phrase-wrd))
(aref curr-phrase phrase-wrd))
finally
(setq found-one t)
(let ((phrase-symbols
(map 'list #'(lambda (x)
(intern (string-upcase x)))
curr-phrase)))
(vector-push-extend phrase-symbols
found-phrases
2))))))))
(if found-one
found-phrases
'nil)))
finish up calculations
(do-other-calculations 0
;; calculate average similarity of sentences to document
(setf (ave-sent-doc-similarity doc-stat)
(/ (ave-sent-doc-similarity doc-stat) (length scratchpad)))
calculate std. dev. of similarity of sentences to document
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length scratchpad) 1)
do (setf (doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev doc-stat)
(+ (doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev doc-stat)
(expt (- (aref scratchpad x)
(ave-sent-doc-similarity doc-stat))
2))))
(setf (doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev doc-stat)
(if (> (length scratchpad) 1)
(/ (doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev doc-stat)
(- (length scratchpad) 1))
74
0))
get comparative assessment of similarity of sentences with doc.
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length scratchpad) 1)
do (set-sent-char (aref sent-chars-array x)
'sent-doc-similarity
(get-similarity (aref scratchpad x))
(aref scratchpad x))))
get comparative assessment of the similarity by using the ave and
std. dev.
(get-similarity (doc-sent-sim)
(let ((difference (- doc-sent-sim (ave-sent-doc-similarity doc-stat))))
(if (> difference 0)
(if
(> difference (doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev doc-stat))
(if (> difference (* 2 (doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev doc-stat)))
'3-dev-above
'2-dev-above)
'1-dev-above)
(if (> (- difference) (doc-sent-similarity-stand-dev doc-stat))
'2-dev-below
'1-dev-below)))))
begin function
add all information directly accessible from the document object
(add-doc-info doc-structure)
calculate all information possible from analyzing the parts of the
document
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length (sections doc-structure)) 1)
do (analyze-section doc-structure
x
(make-instance 'sentence-stat)))
more calculations... need a second pass to assimilate
(do-other-calculations)
;; return document characteristics and sentence characteristics array
(cons doc-stat sent-chars-array))))
sets a sentence characteristic to a certain value
(defmethod set-sent-char ((sent-stat sentence-stat) charact value
&optional data)
(set-sent-item (sent-char-list sent-stat) charact value data))
sets a sentence slot to a certain value(s)
(defmethod set-sent-cont ((sent-stat sentence-stat) charact value
&optional data)
(set-sent-item (sent-cont-list sent-stat) charact value data))
sets a sentence item to a value- used by characteristics and containers
(defun set-sent-item (char-array charact value &optional data)
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length char-array) 1)
do (let ((char (aref char-array x)))
(when (eq charact (car char))
(setf (aref char-array x) (list (car char) value data))
(return)))
finally (break "sentence characteristic ~A not found in sentence data"
charact)))
create the list of important items the sentence contains; fields can
;;have multiple values. save in sent-stat object
(defun make-contain-list ()
(let ((sent-contain-array (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t)))
(add-charact 'keyphrase-content sent-contain-array)
(add-charact 'structure-content sent-contain-array)
sent-contain-array))
create the list of characteristics needed for each sentence- save in
sent-stat object
(defun make-charact-list ()
75
(let ((sent-charact-array (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t)))
(add-charact 'section-loc sent-charact-array)
(add-charact 'paragraph-loc sent-charact-array)
(add-charact 'sentence-loc sent-charact-array)
(add-charact 'key-title sent-charact-array)
(add-charact 'sent-doc-similarity sent-charact-array)
(add-charact 'title-content sent-charact-array)
(add-charact 'sentence-length sent-charact-array)
sent-charact-array))
returns a sentence characteristic
(defmethod get-charact ((sent-stat sentence-stat) charact)
(let ((char-array (sent-char-list sent-stat))
(value 'nil))
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length char-array) 1)
do (when (eq (car (aref char-array x)) charact)
(setq value (cdr (aref char-array x)))
(return))
finally (break "characteristic ~A not found in sentence-stat object"
charact))
value))
helper with make-charact-list; adds another characteristic to the list
(defun add-charact (symbol array)
(vector-push-extend (cons symbol 'nil) array 15))
make a copy of a sent-stat object
(defmethod copy-of ((sent-stat sentence-stat))
(let ((copy (make-instance 'sentence-stat)))
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length (sent-char-list sent-stat))
do (setf (aref (sent-char-list copy) x)
(aref (sent-char-list sent-stat) x)))
copy))
B.5
1)
Template.lisp
Irene Wilson
;; AI lab
Knowledge-Based Collaboration Project
created:
? IW
altered:
1-4-99 IW
Template.lisp
This file contains the code that reads in a "template" file and
processes it into a doc-template object. A different template is
made for different types of documents. The template stores a list of
sentence characteristics that are important to determine which
sentence is the topic sentence for that particular type of document.
It also stores how much weight should be given to each sentence
characteristic. For each characteristic, there are several possible
values, each of which receives a value which represents the probability
that the sentence is a topic sentence given the value is true.
class that contains all info for a doc type
(defclass doc-template ()
((charact-array :accessor charact-array
76
:initform (make-array
0 :adjustable t
:fill-pointer t))))
;; class that contains all the info for one characteristic of the doc type
(defclass characteristic ()
((name :accessor name :initform 'nil)
(weight :accessor weight :initform 0)
the slots are the different values for the characteristics and what weight
they each have
(slots :accessor slots :initform (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t))))
returns a template object that contains all the info needed to process a
document of that type
(defun get-template (doc-type)
(let ((my-template (make-instance 'doc-template)))
;; read in the template file of that type
(with-open-file (template-stream (concatenate 'string
"Grant-HD1:Users:merri:input:"
(string-downcase doc-type)
"-template"))
(loop for line = (get-line template-stream)
while line
;; lines with # in front are slots; without are char. categories
do (if (eq (aref line 0) #\*)
;; check to make sure a characteristic comes before a slot
(if (> (length (charact-array my-template)) 0)
(add-slot my-template line)
(break "template format incorrect"))
(setf my-template (add-char my-template line)))))
my-template))
add another characteristic to the template
returns the new template
(defmethod add-char ((template doc-template) line)
(let ((word-array (parse-line line)))
(when (< (length word-array) 2) (break t "template format incorrect"))
;; make new characteristic
(let ((curr-charact (make-instance 'characteristic))
(val))
(setf (name curr-charact) (intern (string-upcase (aref word-array 0))))
;; set the weight of the new characteristic
(unless (setq val (parse-float (aref word-array 1)))
(break "template format incorrect:
A" (aref word-array 1)))
(setf (weight curr-charact) val)
(setf (slots curr-charact) (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t))
(vector-push-extend curr-charact (charact-array template)))
template))
add another slot value to the current characteristic
(defmethod add-slot ((template doc-template) line)
;; get rid of the #s in the beginning of the line
(let ((start-info (position-if (lambda (x) (not (eq #\# x))) line)))
(unless start-info (break "template format incorrect: blank line"))
(let ((word-array (parse-line (subseq line start-info))))
;; check that there are at least two words in the line
(when (< (length word-array) 2)
(break t "template format incorrect: not enough arguments"))
(let (;; get the current characteristic to which this slot belongs
(curr-charact (aref (charact-array template)
(- (length (charact-array template)) 1)))
get the value of the rating of this slot
(val (parse-float (aref word-array (- (length word-array) 1)))))
(unless val (break "template format incorrect: ~A" (aref word-array 1)))
add slot value + all the words in the line to the template
characteristic array location
(let ((word-list 'nil))
(loop for x from (- (length word-array) 2) downto 0
do (setq word-list
(cons (intern (string-upcase (aref word-array x)))
77
(vector-push-extend
word-list)))
(cons val word-list) (slots curr-charact)))))))
get the next line from a stream that is not all whitespace and does not
non-whitespace character
have a semicolon as the first
(defun get-line (stream)
(let ((first-item)
(next-line 'nil))
(loop for line = (read-line stream nil nil)
while line
do (when (and (setq first-item (position-if *'not-space line))
(not (eq (aref line first-item) #\;)))
(setq next-line line)
(return)))
next-line))
B.6
Rank.lisp
Irene Wilson
AI lab
Knowledge-Based Collaboration Project
created:
? IW
altered: 1-20-99 IW
Rank.lisp
This file contains the code that ranks the sentences of the document.
It uses the template information to calculate the impact of the data
stored in the sent-statistics array
This object is used to keep track of the rating of a sentence. An array
of these objects are created to represent the rating of all the sentences
in the document
(defclass sent-rating-info 0
(;; this is the overall rating of the sentence
(sent-rating :accessor sent-rating :initform 0)
an array of the sentence characteristics used to calculate the
rating
(chars-used :accessor chars-used
:initform (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t))
an array of the values for each of the sentence characteristics in
chars-used; these numbers summed give the sent-rating
(val-of-chars-used :accessor val-of-chars-used
:initform (make-array 0 :adjustable t :fill-pointer t))))
calculates the "goodness" of all the sentences using the outline in the
template. returns an array of ratings for each sentence. The higher, the more
likely that sentence is a good summarizing sentence
(defun make-sentence-rankings (sent-statistics template)
(let ((sentence-ratings
(make-array (length sent-statistics) :element-type 'sent-rating-info))
(all-characters (charact-array template)))
(labels
adds the characteristic "character" to the sentence rating of
every sentence
(add-in-character (character char-index mult-val)
(loop
for y from 0 to (- (length sent-statistics) 1)
(;;
78
do (let ((sent-stat (aref sent-statistics y)))
(if mult-val
(let ((sent-cont-info
(aref (sent-cont-list sent-stat) char-index)))
(calc-slot-value character sent-cont-info y))
(let* ((sent-char-info
(aref (sent-char-list sent-stat) char-index))
(item-val (get-item-val character
(cadr sent-char-info))))
(when (eq item-val -1)
(format t "WARNING: sentence characteristic slot
not found: ~A:~A" (name character)
(cadr sent-char-info))
(setq item-val 0))
(add-in-slot-value character
sent-char-info
item-val
add the "item-val" multiplied by the characteristic weight
to the sentence-rating indicated by "index". Also record the
characteristic, slot assignment, and intermediate values.
(add-in-slot-value (character sent-char-info item-val index)
(let ((prev-rating-info (aref sentence-ratings index)))
(setf (sent-rating prev-rating-info)
(+ (sent-rating prev-rating-info)
(* item-val (weight character))))
(vector-push-extend sent-char-info
(chars-used prev-rating-info)
10)
(vector-push-extend (list item-val
(weight character)
(* item-val (weight character)))
(val-of-chars-used prev-rating-info)
10)))
this function is used by characteristic slots that can have
All the values of the slots are combined into
multiple values.
one overall value and added to the appropriate sentence's rating
(calc-slot-value (character sent-char-info index)
(let ((item-list (cadr sent-char-info))
(inverse-accum 1))
(loop
for item-index from 0 to (- (length item-list) 1)
do (let ((item-val
(get-phrase-val character
(aref item-list item-index))))
(unless (eq item-val -1)
(setq inverse-accum (* inverse-accum (- 1 item-val)))
(format t "VALUE: ~A ~A" (- 1 inverse-accum) *\Return))))
(add-in-slot-value character
sent-char-info
(- 1 inverse-accum)
index)))
this looks up the value of a slot assignemnt
to the characteristic "character"
(get-item-val (character item)
(loop
for curr-slot across (slots character)
when (equal (cadr curr-slot) item)
do (return (car curr-slot))
finally (return 0)))
"item"
this looks up the value of a slot assignemnt "phrase"
to the characteristic "character"
79
(get-phrase-val (character phrase)
(loop
for curr-slot across (slots character)
when (equal (cdr curr-slot) phrase)
do (return (car curr-slot))
finally (return -1))))
initialize sentence ratings
(loop
for x from 0 to (- (length sentence-ratings) 1)
do (setf (aref sentence-ratings x) (make-instance
'sent-rating-info)))
go through each characteristic in the report template and accumulate
a fitness total for each sentence in the sent-characteristics array
(loop
for x from 0 to (- (length all-characters) 1)
;; find each template characteristic in sentence stats
do (let* ((character (aref all-characters x))
(char-index
(get-info-index (name character)
(sent-char-list (aref sent-statistics 0)))))
(if char-index
(add-in-character character char-index 'nil)
(let ((cont-index
(get-info-index (name character)
(sent-cont-list (aref sent-statistics 0)))))
A"
(unless cont-index (break "sentence characteristic not found:
(name character)))
(add-in-character character cont-index 't)))))
sentence-ratings)))
the index of the characteristic "key" in the array of characteristics
;;find
sent-stat
(defun get-info-index (key char-array)
(let ((index 'nil))
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length char-array) 1)
do (when (eq key (car (aref char-array x)))
(setq index x)
(return)))
index))
B.7
Lib.lisp
;;Irene Wilson
;; AI lab
Knowledge-Based Collaboration Project
created:
? IW
altered: 1-4-99
IW
;;Lib.lisp
sets all members of vector to value
80
in
(defun set-vector (vector value)
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length vector) 1)
do (setf (aref vector x) value)))
This function returns a vector that contains all the key phrases that
Each phrase is
might indicate that a sentence is a topic sentence.
represented by an array of strings.
(defun get-phrases (filename)
(let ((phrase-array (make-array 0
:adjustable t
:fill-pointer t
:element-type 'string)))
(with-open-file (phrase-stream (concatenate 'string
"Grant-HD1:Users:merri:input:"
filename)
:direction :input)
(loop for phrase = (read-line phrase-stream nil nil)
while phrase
do (let ((curr-phrase-array (parse-line phrase)))
(when (> (length curr-phrase-array) 0)
(vector-push-extend (parse-line phrase) phrase-array 20))))
phrase-array)))
a line of text and returns an array of strings; one string for each
;;takes
word. No whitespace is preserved.
(defun parse-line (line)
(let ((end 0))
(loop with word-array = (make-array 0
:adjustable t
:fill-pointer t
:element-type 'string)
for st = (position-if *'not-space line :start end)
while st
do (setq end (or (position #\Space line :start st) (length line)))
(vector-push-extend (subseq line st end) word-array 5)
finally (return word-array))))
(defun not-space (x)
(not (eq x #\Space)))
(defun whitespace-p (x)
(find x '(#\Space #\Tab)))
;;Parses a string into a float number.
(defun parse-float (str)
(let ((num 0)
(decimal (position *\. str)))
(cond
(decimal
(setq num (parse-integer
(concatenate 'string
(subseq str 0 decimal)
(subseq str (+ 1 decimal)))
:junk-allowed 't))
(setq num (/ num (expt 10 (- (- (length str) decimal) 1)))))
(t (parse-integer str :junk-allowed 't)))))
This function takes a file name as input and creates a stream to that file.
(The file should be in my working directory.)
(defun get-stream (file-name)
(open (make-pathname :directory "Grant-HD1:Users:merri:input" :name file-name)
:direction
:input))
81
These words are ignored when the word statistics of a portion of text is
computed.
(defparameter *non-keywords*
"it" "not"
(a" "an" "and" "as" "at" "be" "but" "by" "for" "in" "is" "if"
"of" "on" "or" "that" "the" "this" "to" "with"))
Returns true if wrd is a keyword, else false
(defun keyword-p (wrd)
(not (find wrd *non-keywords* :test 'equalp)))
Just like position-if with an extra optional input to check that the start location
If both out-of-bounds input is true, and if either there is no start
is in bounds.
or the start is out of bounds, returns nil.
(defun my-position-if (predicate proseq &key key from-end start end out-of-bounds-check)
(if (and out-of-bounds-check (not start))
'nil
(if (and start (> start (length proseq)))
'nil
(position-if predicate
proseq
:key (or key 'identity)
:from-end (or from-end 'nil)
:start (or start 0)
:end (or end 'nil)))))
Takes the dot product of two vectors. The vectors do NOT have to be of the
same length; if one vector is shorter that the other, the rest of the short
vector is effectively padded with zeros.
(defun dot-product (long-vect short-vect)
(let ((sum 0)
(total-long 0)
(total-short 0))
(loop for x from 0 to (- (length short-vect) 1)
do (let ((vall (aref long-vect x))
(val2 (aref short-vect x)))
(setq sum (+ sum (* vall val2)))
(setq total-long (+ total-long (* vali vall)))
(setq total-short (+ total-short (* val2 val2)))))
(loop for x from (length short-vect) to (- (length long-vect) 1)
do (setq total-long (+ total-long
(* (aref long-vect x) (aref long-vect x)))))
(if (> total-short 0)
(/ sum (* (sqrt total-long) (sqrt total-short)))
0)))
82
Appendix C
Sample Output
C.1
Sample Article Output
CHICAGO -- United Airlines and parent UAL Corp. took a vital step toward
completing a proposed employee buyout by issuing $1.15 billion in bonds and
preferred stock, but the offerings raised less than the $1.5 billion Wall
Street had expected.
While the amount fell below estimates, it still represents a crucial step in
UAL's bid to persuade shareholders to approve the buyout plan at the company's
annual meeting July 12. UAL recently renegotiated the terms of the buyout
agreement, offering to give shareholders the proceeds from the offering rather
than the securities themselves.
"It's a positive move," said Ray Neidl, an analyst with Furman Selz Inc.
stockholders would have had less incentive to vote for the deal."
"Without it,
With interest rates rising, investors in UAL stock had grown increasingly
fearful that the securities they would have gotten would trade for less than
they hoped. UAL's stock plummeted this year from its pre-deal high of around
$155, although it has rebounded somewhat recently. In New York Stock Exchange
composite trading yesterday, UAL's stock closed at $127 a share, down 25 cents.
Yesterday's offering priced $410.4 million of cumulative preferred stock at
$25 each, and priced a split-rated debt offering valued at an additional $741.2
million. The proceeds will be used to make payments of $84.81 a share to
current UAL shareholders for the 55% of the company that employees are
proposing to buy-a price that is on the low end of what analysts were
expecting. In addition, holders will receive one-half of a new share of UAL
common.
Some analysts questioned United's ability to back up the bonds, especially
since summer airline traffic normally brings lower yields. Dean Sparkman, an
airline consultant in Roslyn, Va., said, "The deal's a go. But it's taking on
the classic smell of a leveraged buyout. And as a guide, LBO's have not
historically been successful in the airline business."
83
Moreover, UAL said yesterday it would use $300 million of cash reserves to
compensate for the shortfall off proceeds from the offerings.
However, according to the company's prospectus for the transaction, cash
churned out by UAL will increase $550 million a year on average between now and
1999. "Because of the cash savings, they are going to be able to strengthen the
balance sheet in pretty short order," said Mr. Neidl. United currently has more
than $1 billion in cash and another $1 billion in short-term investments.
United sold $370.2 million of 10-year notes at par to yield 10.67%. United's
$371 million offering of 20-year debentures was priced at par to yield 11.21%.
The company launched a $765 million preferred stock offering at a 12%
dividend yield last week, but cut the size of the offering yesterday by $355
million at pricing and increased the dividend to 12.25%. The 16.4 million
shares were priced at $25 each, according to the lead manager, Merrill Lynch &
Co.
? (auto-sum "art8" :numb-sents 3)
1: CHICAGO -- United Airlines and parent UAL Corp. took a vital step
toward completing a proposed employee buyout by issuing $1.15 billion
in bonds and preferred stock, but the offerings raised less than the
$1.5 billion Wall Street had expected.
> 1 x 40 = 40
SECTION-LOC: FIRST
> 1 x 50 = 50
PARAGRAPH-LOC: FIRST
> 1 x 40 = 40
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG ==> 1 x 100 = 100
> 1 x 25 = 25
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE
2: UAL recently renegotiated the terms of the buyout agreement,
offering to give shareholders the proceeds from the offering rather
than the securities themselves.
SECTION-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 40 = 40
PARAGRAPH-LOC: SECOND ==> 7/10 x 50 = 35
> 1/2 x 40 = 20
SENTENCE-LOC: SECOND
> 1 x 100 = 100
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE ==> 1 x 25 = 25
3: While the amount fell below estimates, it still represents a
crucial step in UAL's bid to persuade shareholders to approve the
buyout plan at the company's annual meeting July 12.
SECTION-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 40 = 40
PARAGRAPH-LOC: SECOND ==> 7/10 x 50 = 35
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 40 = 40
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG ==> 1 x 100 = 100
> 0 x 25 = 0
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 2-DEV-BELOW
84
C.2
Sample Documentation Output
Environment for running local transports
Local transports handle deliveries to files and pipes. (The 'autoreply'
transport can be thought of as similar to a pipe.) Whenever a local transport is
Before running the transport code, it sets
run, Exim forks a subprocess for it.
a specific uid and gid by calling 'setuido' and 'setgido'. It also sets a
current file directory; for some transports a home directory setting is also
relevant.
The values used for the uid, gid, and the directories may come from several
different places. In many cases the director that handles the address associates
settings with that address. However, values may also be given in the transport's
own configuration, and these override anything that comes with the address. The
sections below contain a summary of the possible sources of the values, and how
they interact with each other.
Uids and gids
All local transports have the options 'group' and 'user'. If 'group' is set, it
overrides any group that may be set in the address, even if 'user' is not set.
This makes it possible, for example, to run local mail delivery under the uid of
the recipient, but in a special group. For example:
group-delivery:
driver = appendfile
file = /var/spool/mail/${local-part}
group = mail
If 'user' is set, its value overrides what is set in the address. If 'user' is
non-numeric and 'group' is not set, the gid associated with the user is used. If
'user' is numeric, then 'group' must be set.
The 'pipe' transport contains the special option 'pipe.ascreator'. If this is
set and 'user' is not set, the uid of the process that called Exim to receive
the message is used, and if 'group' is not set, the corresponding original gid
is also used.
When the uid is taken from the transport's configuration, the 'initgroupso'
function is called for the groups associated with that uid if the 'initgroups'
option is set for the transport; 'pipe' is the only transport that has such an
option.
When the uid is not specified by the transport, but is associated with the
address by a director or router, the option for calling 'initgroups(' is taken
from the director or router configuration. All directors and routers have
85
'group', 'user', and 'initgroups' options, which are used as follows:
For the 'aliasfile' director they specify the uid and gid for local deliveries
generated directly -- that is, deliveries to pipes or files. They have no effect
on generated addresses that are processed independently.
The 'forwardfile' director's 'checklocaluser' option causes a password file
lookup for the local part of an address. The uid and gid obtained from this
lookup are used for any directly generated local deliveries, but they can be
overridden by the 'group' and 'user' options of the director. As for
'aliasfile', these values are not used for generated addresses that are
processed independently.
The 'localuser' director looks up local parts in the password file, and sets the
uid and gid from that file for local deliveries, but these values can be
overridden by the director's options.
For the 'smartuser' director and all the routers, the 'group', 'user', and
'initgroups' options are used only if the driver sets up a delivery to a local
transport.
Current and home directories
The 'pipe' transport has a 'homedirectory' option. If this is set, it overrides
any home directory set by the director for the address. The value of the home
directory is set in the environment variable HOME while running the pipe. It
need not be set, in which case HOME is not defined.
The 'appendfile' transport does not have a 'homedirectory' option. The only use
for a home directory in this transport is if the expansion variable '$home' is
used in one of its options, in which case the value set by the director is used.
The 'appendfile' and 'pipe' transports have a 'currentdirectory' option. If
this is set, it overrides any current directory set by the director for the
address. If neither the director nor the transport sets a current directory,
then Exim uses the value of the home directory, if set. Otherwise it sets the
current directory to '/' before running a local transport.
The 'aliasfile', 'forwardfile', and 'localuser' directors all have
'currentdirectory' and 'homedirectory' options, which are associated with any
addresses they explicitly direct to a local transport.
For 'forwardfile', if 'homedirectory' is not set and there is a
'filedirectory' value, that is used instead. If it too is not set, but
'checklocaluser' is set, the user's home directory is used. For 'localuser',
if 'homedirectory' is not set, the home directory is taken from the password
file entry that this director looks up. There are no defaults for
'current-directory' in the directors, because it defaults to the value of
'homedirectory' if it is not set at transport time.
86
The 'smartuser' director and all the routers have no means of setting up home
and current directory strings; consequently any local transport that they use
must specify them for itself if they are required.
Expansion variables derived from the address
Normally a local delivery is handling a single address, and in that case the
variables such as '$domain' and '$local-part' are set during local deliveries.
However, in some circumstances more than one address may be handled at once (for
example, while writing batch SMTP for onward transmission by some other means).
In this case, the variables associated with the local part are never set,
'$domain' is set only if all the addresses have the same domain, and
'$original-domain' is never set.
? (auto-sum "doc8" :numb-sents 4)
1:
Local transports handle deliveries to files and pipes.
15
SECTION-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 15
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST => 1 x 20 = 20
30
SENTENCE-LENGTH: SHORT ==> 1 x 30
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 2-DEV-BELOW ==> 0 x 10 = 0
2: The values used for the uid, gid, and the directories may come from
several different places.
> 4/5 x 15 = 12
SECTION-LOC: SECOND
> 1 x 20 = 20
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST
SENTENCE-LENGTH: SHORT ==> 1 x 30 = 30
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 2-DEV-BELOW ==> 0 x 10 = 0
3: The 'smartuser' director and all the routers have no means of
setting up home and current directory strings; consequently any local
transport that they use must specify them for itself if they are
required.
SECTION-LOC: BODY ==> 0 x 15 = 0
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 20 = 20
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG ==> 1 x 30 = 30
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE ==> 1 x 10 = 10
4: Normally a local delivery is handling a single address, and in that
case the variables such as '$domain' and '$local-part' are set during
local deliveries.
SECTION-LOC: BODY ==> 0 x 15 = 0
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 20 = 20
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG ==> 1 x 30 = 30
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE ==> 1 x 10 = 10
87
C.3
Sample Report Output
December, 1994
Designing NewsMaker:
Ethnographic Methods Applied
in Elementary School
Michele Evard, Noah Breslow
MIT Media Lab
20 Ames Street, E15-320
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Tel: 1-617-253-0330
E-mail: [email protected]
L. Mark Kortekaas
NBC Desktop News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112, USA
Tel: 1-212-664-5292
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 1994 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
reserved.
All rights
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the participatory design process for an on-line
communications environment which we created for children's use in school. Rather
than conducting controlled lab experiments, we introduced our initial
implementation of the system to children for use in their school projects. We
applied ethnographic techniques, including observations, informal discussions,
and interviews, to obtain the children's input on further design decisions. From
these experiences we obtained a clear picture of how students in a natural
setting would use the software.
KEYWORDS: Ethnography, educational applications, participatory design,
communication, news.
INTRODUCTION
The application of participatory design methods to the creation of new
environments for children is complicated by several factors, including the
typical roles adults play in a child's life. The children must first be
convinced that a designer is not trying to instruct or test them; even once
trust is established, they may be unable to imagine the system being designed or
the uses to which they may put it. In this paper we describe how we brought the
initial implementation of a software system into a school for the children's
use, and then, using ethnographic methods, engaged the children in the design
88
process.
We feel that this approach is particularly relevant to designs done by adults
for children. Even some environments which are meant to engage children as
active learners [5] have not been designed with children's aid. Focus groups
have been used, but because the children sometimes have a difficult time
imagining how they might use a planned system, their success has been limited.
We hope that this paper will provide designers with concrete methods for
involving children in design.
NEWSMAKER
NewsMaker was originally designed to be a production tool which would allow
children to create personal newspapers. Children would be able to create their
own articles, edit in-house as well as external news articles, and select
articles to assemble into a printed paper using automatic layout [3].
A few additions to the original design were made to provide an in-house Usenetstyle infrastructure. We did not include all of the functionality which we would
want, preferring to allow the children to participate fully in that part of the
design. Both aspects of the design were informed by prior discussions with
children about their use of news [2].
ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODS APPLIED
We introduced NewsMaker to students in two fourth-grade and four fifth-grade
classes in a Boston inner-city public elementary school. We emphasized to each
group that the design was not complete, and that while they were doing their
projects, we would like their input on how the system worked--or did not work.
We followed two of the classes each time they used the system, and observed the
others occasionally. The students with whom Evard worked were involved daily in
the design and implementation of educational video games; they used NewsMaker at
will to ask and respond to questions about game design during the entire fourmonth process [1]. Kortekaas assisted a class which used NewsMaker twice a week
for seven weeks to create individual newspapers. Our role during these sessions
was to help the children with their projects.
Observations
Some of the problems the children encountered occurred during the first sessions
of use. For example, we noticed that the children had difficulties with mouse
manipulation and therefore provided keyboard alternatives to double-clicking.
While this type of problem could have been identified in an experimental
situation, children encountered other types of difficulties during normal use
over time. For example, when a large number of articles had accumulated in one
group, children tried to use the keyword search as an author search to find
articles which they knew had been written by certain classmates. This
misunderstanding would not have occurred in an experimental setting as the
children would not have been using large groups of articles by people they knew.
Discussions During Use
89
When one of us would see a student having difficulties or would be called over
to assist a student, we would talk with the child about what he or she was
attempting to do. This often illuminated their understanding of the system. For
example, one girl called Evard over to ask why delete was not working. She had
posted a response which she decided sounded rude, and wanted to delete it. To do
so, she replied to her own post, cut out her comment, and reposted. She tried
this several times before requesting help; through discussion with her it became
apparent that she thought replies replaced the original message. Another girl
said that she didn't like to use the reply command because if the previous
students had not signed their names to their messages, it appeared as if she had
written their part or tried to take credit for it. We believe that these types
of issues would not have come to our attention during other types of usability
studies.
Requests
On several occasions a student would initiate a conversation with one of the
observers and request a change or addition to NewsMaker. The first request was
for a reply command that would include the original message. The most common
request was for a new group; one of these was a request for weather forecasts
from an external source, but most of them were for new groups to which the
children could contribute. The groups included rap music, puzzles, school news,
Logo programming, ecology, Japan, video games, and book reviews. Students also
requested changes to the interface, such as making a child's name visible on the
same screen as his or her article, and to have particular hot keys for tasks
which they did frequently.
Formal Interviews
We conducted individual interviews with students. While the students would
freely discuss their opinions of what they and others used NewsMaker for, they
seemed to find it difficult to point out particular design issues. Several of
the children articulated problems which they had had during use, but these had
generally been observed prior to the interview.
TIMING OF CHANGES
We made some modifications during these four months, but chose to do most of the
changes after the school year ended to avoid disturbing the children's projects.
The potential for disruption was made clear to us when we renamed one of the
system's menu titles. Even though several of the children had requested this
change to a more commonly used term, when it was implemented many of the
children were confused. Such disruption could perhaps be avoided by discussing
each change with all of the groups of children, but it was felt that this would
distract students from their required activities. The changes are now being
tested by children and have met with positive reactions.
IMPLICATIONS
In addition to advising us on software design, the children created activities,
chose discussion topics, and set guidelines about the appropriateness of certain
types of messages. Future work will focus on these areas. Additional
modifications to the environment will be made if and when required by the
90
students.
This work has demonstrated that nine- and ten-year-old children can contribute
constructively to the design of environments for their use. Our use of
participation. It is
their
ethnographic methods during natural use facilitated
or
similar methods to
these
to
use
be
able
will
designers
other
that
our hope
use.
their
meant
for
of
systems
the
design
aid
in
to
allow children
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The children of Project Headlight who participated in our work are responsible
for its success; any problems are certainly due to the authors and not the
children. We would also like to thank the teachers as well as our advisors and
other members of the Media Lab who have been helpful in this work. This research
was supported by the News In The Future Consortium and the MIT Media Lab.
REFERENCES
1. Evard, M. Articulation of Design Issues: Learning Through Exchanging
Questions and Answers. In Y. Kafai and M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in
Practice: Rethinking the Roles of Technology in Learning. MIT Media Laboratory,
Cambridge, MA, 1994.
2. Evard, M. What Is "News"?: Children's Conceptions and Uses of News. Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (April 1994, New
Orleans, LA).
3. Kortekaas, L. M. News and Education: Creation of "The Classroom Chronicle."
Master's thesis, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, 1994.
4. Monk, A., B. Nardi, N. Gilbert, M. Mantei & J. McCarthy. Mixing oil and
water? Ethnography versus Experimental psychology in then study of computermediated communication. Proceedings of CHI'93, 3-6, ACM New York, 1993.
5. Papert, S. The Children's Machine. Basic Books, New York, 1993.
? (auto-sum "rep8" :numb-sents 4)
1: This paper presents the participatory design process for an on-line
communications environment which we created for children's use in
school.
==> 3/5 x 20 = 12
==> 1 x 4 = 4
> 1 x 10 = 10
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE
==> 0 x 30 = 0
KEYPHRASE-CONTENT: #(
TITLE-CONTENT: NIL ==> 0 x 30 = 0
SECTION-LOC: SECOND
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG
2:
==> 1 x 30 = 30
Copyright 1994 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
91
SECTION-LOC: FIRST
==>
1 x 20 = 20
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 4 = 4
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 2-DEV-BELOW ==> 0 x 10 = 0
==> 0 x 30 = 0
KEYPHRASE-CONTENT: #
0 x 30 = 0
>
NIL
TITLE-CONTENT:
==> 1 x 30 = 30
SHORT
SENTENCE-LENGTH:
3: From these experiences we obtained a clear picture of how students
in a natural setting would use the software.
12
> 3/5 x 20
SECTION-LOC: SECOND
> 0 x 4 = 0
SENTENCE-LOC: BODY
> 1 x 10 = 10
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE
==> 0 x 30 = 0
KEYPHRASE-CONTENT: #
> 0 x 30 = 0
TITLE-CONTENT: NIL
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG ==> 1 x 30 = 30
4: Rather than conducting controlled lab experiments, we introduced
implementation of the system to children for use in their
our initial
school projects.
SECTION-LOC: SECOND ==> 3/5 x 20 = 12
> 0 x 4 = 0
SENTENCE-LOC: SECOND
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE ==> 1 x 10 = 10
==> 0 x 30 = 0
KEYPHRASE-CONTENT: #0
TITLE-CONTENT: NIL ==> 0 x 30 = 0
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG ==> 1 x 30 = 30
C.4
Sample Speech Output
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Highfill, Arkansas)
November 7, 1998
For Immediate Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN RADIO ADDRESS TO THE NATION
The Oval Office
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week the American people sent a
clear message to Washington that we must put politics aside and take
real action on the real challenges facing are nation: saving Social
Security for the 21st century, passing a patients' bill of rights,
strengthening our schools by finishing the job of hiring 100,000
92
teachers and passing my plan to build or modernize 5,000 schools across
our country.
Over the past six years, we have taken real action to address another
important challenge: making our communities safe for our families.
For too long it seemed that rising crime was a frightening fact of life
in America. In too many communities children could not play on the
street or walk to school in safety, older Americans locked themselves
in their homes with fear, and gangs armed with illegal guns boldly
roamed our streets and schools.
I took office determined to change this, committed to a comprehensive
anti-crime strategy based on more community policing, tougher
penalties, and better prevention. Today our strategy is showing
remarkable results. We're ahead of schedule and under budget in
meeting our goal of putting 100,000 police on the street. And all
across America, crime rates have fallen to a 25-year low, respect for
the law is on the rise, families are beginning to feel safe in their
communities again.
Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals has been at the center of
our strategy, and an essential part of our success. Since I signed the
Brady Law, after a big debate in Congress which was led in the House of
Representatives by now Senator-elect Charles Schumer of New York,
background checks have put a stop to nearly a quarter of a million
handgun purchases by fugitives or felons. Law enforcement officers
from around the country have told us that fewer guns on the street have
made a huge difference in the lives of families they serve.
At the end of this month, we will make the Brady Law even stronger.
For the first time ever, we will require background checks for the
purchase of any firearm, whether purchased from a licensed gun deal or
a pawn shop. But under this new Insta-Check system, as it's called,
we'll be able to run nearly twice as many background checks, and most
of them in just a matter of minutes.
We've spent five years working with state and local law enforcement to
put this system in place, but when it comes to our families' safety, we
must take another important step. Every year, an untold number of
firearms are bought and sold at an estimated 5,000 gun shows around our
country. I come from a state where these shows are very popular. I
have visited and enjoyed them over the years. They're often the first
place parents teach their children how to handle firearms safely. I
know most gun dealers and owners are dedicated to promoting safe and
legal gun use.
But at too many gun shows, a different, dangerous trend is emerging.
Because the law permits some firearms to be sold without background
checks, some of these gun shows have become illegal arms bazaars for
criminals and gun traffickers looking to buy and sell guns on a
cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis.
On Tuesday, the people of Florida voted overwhelmingly to put a stop
to these tainted transactions and make it harder for criminals to buy
93
firearms. Under the new Florida law, communities now can take action
to require background checks for the public sale of all guns. I
No background check, no
believe this should be the law of the land:
gun, no exceptions.
Therefore, I am directing Secretary Rubin and Attorney General Reno to
report back to me in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole in the
law and prohibit any gun sale without a background check. We didn't
fight as hard as we did to pass the Brady Law only to let a handful
of unscrupulous gun dealers disrespect the law, undermine our progress,
put the safety of our families at risk. With this action, we are one
step closer to shutting them down.
I look forward to working together with members of both parties in the
new Congress to meet this challenge and all our challenges to build a
safer and stronger America for the 21st century.
Thanks for listening.
END
? (auto-sum "sp8"
:numb-sents 3)
1: This week the American people sent a clear message to Washington
that we must put politics aside and take real action on the real
challenges facing are nation: saving Social Security for the 21st
century, passing a patients' bill of rights, strengthening our schools
by finishing the job of hiring 100,000 teachers and passing my plan to
build or modernize 5,000 schools across our country.
SECTION-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 5 = 5
15
SENTENCE-LOC: SECOND ==> 1 x 15
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE ==> 1 x 10 = 10
30
> 1 x 30
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG
> 0 x 25 = 0
KEYPHRASE-CONTENT: #()
2: Because the law permits some firearms to be sold without background
checks, some of these gun shows have become illegal arms bazaars for
criminals and gun traffickers looking to buy and sell guns on a
cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis.
SECTION-LOC: BODY ==> 0 x 5 = 0
SENTENCE-LOC: SECOND ==> 1 x 15 = 15
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE ==> 1 x 10 = 10
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG ==> 1 x 30 = 30
=> 0 x 25 = 0
KEYPHRASE-CONTENT: #(
3: Therefore, I am directing Secretary Rubin and Attorney General Reno
to report back to me in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole in
the law and prohibit any gun sale without a background check.
> 0 x 5 = 0
SECTION-LOC: BODY
SENTENCE-LOC: FIRST ==> 1 x 15 = 15
SENT-DOC-SIMILARITY: 3-DEV-ABOVE ==> 1 x 10 = 10
SENTENCE-LENGTH: LONG ==> 1 x 30 = 30
==> 0 x 25 = 0
KEYPHRASE-CONTENT: #((THEREFORE))
94
Appendix D
Test Document Sources
D.1
Documentation Sources
alpha-bits.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/doc/cl-http/home-page.html
markl.tech.ftech.net/Exim/exim-html-2.10/doc/html/spec.html
ariel.usc .edu/manuals/matlab52/techdoc/basics/gettingtoc .html
zowie.metnet.navy.mil/~mundyj/METCASTClient-WebHelp/WHStart.htm
www.left-coast.com/docs/java/langspec-1.0/index.html
tahiti . salesforce . com/docs/oracle8/SERVER803/INDEX. HTM
tahiti.salesforce.com/docs/C/STL-doc/
www.comp.utas.edu.au/documentation/python/tut/
D.2
Report Sources
www.ccrl.nj.nec.com/html/publication/index.html,
elib.stanford.edu, el.www.media.mit.edu/groups/el/elpapers.html
95
Appendix E
Templates Used in Testing
E.1
Article Template
here is the template for a newspaper-type document.
explanation: each line that does not begin with a pound sign
represents a sentence characteristic.
After each pound sign,
there is a possible value for that characteristic. Each possible
;; value is assigned a number. The higher the number is, the more
likely it is that a sentence with that characteristic value is
a topic sentence.
section-loc 40
#first
1
#second
0
.2
#last
#body
0
paragraph-loc 50
# first
1
# second .7
# last
0
.3
# body
;; important
;; v.important
sentence-loc 40
# first
1
# second .5
96
# last
.1
# body
0
sentence-length 100
# very-short 0
# short
1
# long
1
sent-doc-similarity 25
.5
# 1-dev-above
.8
# 2-dev-above
# 3-dev-above
1
.2
# 1-dev-below
# 2-dev-below
0
E.2
Documentation Template
here is the template for a documentation-type document.
explanation: each line that does not begin with a pound sign
represents a sentence characteristic.
After each pound sign,
there is a possible value for that characteristic.
Each possible
;; value is assigned a number. The higher the number is, the more
likely it is that a sentence with that characteristic value is
a topic sentence.
section-loc 15
#first
1
#second
.8
#last
.2
#body
0
;; important
sentence-loc 20
# first
1
# second
.3
# last
.2
# body
0
sentence-length
# very-short 0
30
97
1
# short
# long
1
sent-doc-similarity
# 1-dev-above .5
# 2-dev-above .8
# 3-dev-above 1
# 1-dev-below .2
# 2-dev-below 0
E.3
10
Report Template
;; here is the template for a report-type document.
explanation: each line that does not begin with a pound sign
represents a sentence characteristic. After each pound sign,
;; there is a possible value for that characteristic. Each possible
;; value is assigned a number. The higher the number is, the more
likely it is that a sentence with that characteristic value is
a topic sentence.
;;v. important
section-loc 20
# first 1
# second .6
.8
# last
# body
0
sentence-loc
1
# first
# second 0
# last
0
# body
0
4
sent-doc-similarity 10
# 1-dev-above .5
# 2-dev-above
.8
# 3-dev-above
1
# 1-dev-below .2
# 2-dev-below
0
98
30
1
.4
.4
.5
.5
.2
.2
.2
keyphrase-content
# this paper
# will show
# have shown
# in summary
# in conclusion
# introduce
# introduced
# describe
.2
# described
.2
# presented
.2
# propose
.2
# proposed
title-content 30
# abstract 1
# introduction 1
.4
# conclusion
.4
# conclusions
sentence-length 30
# very-short 0
1
# short
1
# long
E.4
Speech Template
;; here is the template for a speech-type document.
explanation: each line that does not begin with a pound sign
represents a sentence characteristic. After each pound sign,
;; there is a possible value for that characteristic.
Each possible
;; value is assigned a number. The higher the number is, the more
likely it is that a sentence with that characteristic value is
a topic sentence.
section-loc
#first
5
1
99
#second
#last
0
.8
#body
0
sentence-loc
# first
1
# second 1
# last
.8
# body
15
0
10
sent-doc-similarity
.5
# 1-dev-above
.8
# 2-dev-above
# 3-dev-above 1
.2
# 1-dev-below
# 2-dev-below 0
30
sentence-length
# very-short
0
# short
.7
# long
1
keyphrase-content
# Today
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
like to talk
like to speak
want to talk
want to speak
that's why
I urge
announce
25
.4
1
1
1
1
.4
.7
.7
100
Appendix F
Summary Analysis Results
The following data represents the scoring of the test documents.
The first column is the number of the document.
The second column contains two numbers separated by a slash. This represents
the number of sentences that the human testers circled and underlined, respectively.
The third column represents the overlap between the human chosen sentences and
the sentences extracted by the AutoExtractor. An o represents a circled sentence, a
- represents an underlined sentence, and a x represents a sentence that was neither
circled nor underlined. The leftmost symbol represents human's evaluation of the first
sentence the AutoExtractor selected, the next position represents the next sentence
automatically selected, etc. For example, the code "x-o" would indicate that the first
sentence of the three the AutoExtractor selected was neither circled or underlined.
The second was underlined, and the third was circled.
The last column represents the score of the summary, calculated according to the
formula given in section 4.3.1.
Documents:
1 1/4 oxxxx 1
2 1/4 oxxxx 1
3 1/4 oxxxx 1
4 1/3 xoxx .875
101
5 1/3 o-xx 1.29
6 1/3 oxxx 1
7 1/4 xoxxx .9
8 1/4 o-xxx 1.23
9 1/4 o-xxx 1.23
10 1/4 oxxx- 1.15
11 1/4 xxxx- .15
12 1/3 xxx- .208
13 1/4 o-xxx 1.225
14 1/3 xxxx 0
15 1/2 xox .833
Reports:
oxxxx-x .629
oxxx 1
xxxxxxx 0
xxoxxo- .864
5 0/3 xx- .222
6 1/3 xoxx .875
7 1/4 xxxxx 0
8 2/4 -xxxx- .396
9 1/4 oxxxx 1
10 2/4 xxxoxx .375
11 2/4 xxxxxx 0
12 1/4 xxxxx 0
13 1/4 xoxxx .9
14 1/4 xx-xx .2
.329
15 2/5 x-xx-x
1
2
3
4
2/5
1/3
2/5
2/5
Articles:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1/2
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/3
1/3
1/3
oxx 1
-xxx .333
oxx 1
oxx 1
xxxx 0
xxxx 0
xxxx 0
8 1/2 o-x 1.42
9 1/3 oxx- 1.21
10 1/3 xxox .75
11 1/2 o-x 1.42
12 1/2 oxx 1
13 1/3 x-xx .292
102
14 0/3 -xx .333
15 1/2 xox .833
Speeches
1 1/2 -xo 1.17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
oxxx 1
xxx 0
xxx 0
xx- .333
xx- .333
xxx 0
xxx 0
9 0/3 xx- .333
10 1/3 xx-x .25
11 1/3 xxxx 0
12 1/2 xx- .333
13 1/2 oxx 1
14 1/2 xxx 0
15 1/2 oxx 1
103
Bibliography
[1] Salton G., Mitra M., Buckley C., and Singha A.
Automatic analysis, theme
generation, and summarization of machine readable texts. Science, 264, 1994.
[2] Rush J.E. Automatic abstracting and indexing. ii. production of abstracts by
application of contextual inference and sytntactic coherence criteria. Journal of
the American Socienty for Information Science, 22(4), 1971.
[3]
Tait J.I. Generating summaries using a script based language analyser. In Steels
L. and Campbell J.A., editors, Progress in artificial intelligence. Ellis Horwood,
Chichester, 1985.
[41 Hasida K., Ishizaki S., and Isahara H. A connectionist approach to the generation of abstracts. In G. Kempen, editor, Natural Language Generation: New
Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology and Lunguistics. Martinus Nijhoff,
Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 1987.
[5] McKeown K.R. and D.R. Radev. Generating summaries of multiple news articles.
In Proceedings of the eighteenth Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference
on Research and Development in IR, 1995.
[6] Alterman R. and Bookman L. Some computational experiments in summarization. Discourse Processes, 13, 1990.
[7] Fung R. Applying bayesian networds to information retrieval. Comms of the
ACM, 38, 1995.
104
[8] Mitkov R., Le Roux D., and Descles J.P. Knowledge-based automatic abstracting: Experiments in the sublanguage of elementary geometry. In C. Martin-Vide,
editor, Current Issues in Mathematical Linguistics. North-Holland, The Netherlands, 1994.
[9] Resnick A. Rath G.J. and Savage R. The formation of abstracts by the selection of sentences: Part 1: sentence selection by man and machines. American
Documentation, 12(2), 1961.
[10] Gerard Salton. Historical note: the past thirty years in information retrieval.
Technical Report TR-87(827):16, Cornell University, April 1987.
[11] Gerard Salton. Term weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Technical
Report TR-87(881):21, Cornell University, November 1987.
[12] Simone Teufel and Marc Moens. Sentence extraction as a classification task.
http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/simone/ac197/teufel-moens97.html,
105
1997.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement