Truncation: all the news that fits we'll print

ABSTRACT

A news article generally contains a high-level overview of the facts early on, followed by paragraphs of more detailed information. This structure allows copy editors to truncate the latter paragraphs of an article in order to satisfy space limitations without losing critical information. Existing approaches to this problem of automatic multi-article layout focus exclusively on maximizing content and aesthetics. However, no algorithm can determine how "good" a truncation point is based on the semantic content, or article readability. Yet, disregarding the semantic information within the article can lead to either overly aggressive cutting, thereby eliminating key content and potentially confusing the reader; conversely, it may set too generous of a truncation point, thus leaving in superfluous content and making automatic layout more difficult. This is one of the remaining challenges on the path from manual layouts to fully automated processes with high quality output. In this work, we present a new semantic-focused approach to rate the quality of a truncation point. We built models based on results from an extensive user study on over 700 news articles. Further results show that existing techniques over-cut content. We demonstrate the layout impact through a second evaluation that implements our models in the first layout approach that integrates both layout and semantic quality. The primary contribution of this work is the demonstration that semantic-based modeling is critical for high-quality automated document synthesis within a real-world context.

References

1. I. Ahmadullin and N. Damera-Venkata. Hierarchical probabilistic model for news composition. In DocEng, page 141, New York, New York, USA, Sept. 2013. ACM Request Permissions.
2. G. J. Badros, A. Borning, and P. J. Stuckey. The Cassowary linear arithmetic constraint solving algorithm. TOCHI, 8(4 (Dec)):267--306, Dec. 2001.
3. J. Batista and D. Oliverira. Two algorithms for automatic document page layout. In DocEng, page 141, New York, New York, USA, Sept. 2008. ACM Request Permissions.
4. D. Beeferman, A. Berger, and J. Lafferty. Statistical Models for Text Segmentation. Machine learning, 34(1-3):177--210, 1999.
5. D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:993--1022, Mar. 2003.
6. A. Brüggemann-Klein, R. Klein, and S. Wohlfeil. On the pagination of complex documents. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2598:49--68, 2003.
7. F. Chua and S. Asur. Automatic Summarization of Events From Social Media. In ICWSM, 2013.
8. P. Ciancarini, A. Di Iorio, L. Furini, and F. Vitali. High-quality pagination for publishing. Software - Practice & Experience, 42(6), June 2012.
9. N. Damera-Venkata, J. Bento, and E. O'Brien-Strain. Probabilistic document model for automated document composition. In DocEng, page 3, New York, New York, USA, Sept. 2011. ACM Request Permissions.
10. H. P. Edmundson. New Methods in Automatic Extracting. Journal of the ACM (JACM, 16(2), Apr. 1969.
11. G. Erkan and D. R. Radev. LexRank: Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. J Artif Intell Res(JAIR), 2004.
12. M. Fiszman, T. C. Rindflesch, and H. Kilicoglu. Abstraction summarization for managing the biomedical research literature. pages 76--83, May 2004.
13. F. Giannetti. An exploratory mapping strategy for web-driven magazines. In Proceeding of the eighth ACM symposium, pages 223--229, New York, New York, USA, 2008. ACM Press.
14. A. Haghighi and L. Vanderwende. Exploring content models for multi-document summarization. pages 362--370, May 2009.
15. J. Hailpern, N. Damera-Venkata, and M. Danilevsky. Pagination: It's what you say, not how long it takes to say it. In DocENG. ACM, 2014.
16. J. Hailpern and B. A. Huberman. Echo: the editor's wisdom with the elegance of a magazine. In EICS. ACM Request Permissions, June 2013.
17. M. A. Hearst. TextTiling: segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), Mar. 1997.
18. N. Hurst, W. Li, and K. Marriott. Review of automatic document formatting. In DocEng, page 99, New York, New York, USA, Sept. 2009. ACM Request Permissions.
19. C. Jacobs, W. Li, E. Schrier, D. Bargeron, and D. Salesin. Adaptive grid-based document layout. SIGGRAPH, 22(3):838--847, July 2003.
20. N. Jamil, J. Mueller, C. Lutteroth, and G. Weber. Extending Linear Relaxation for User Interface Layout. In ICTAI. IEEE Computer Society, Nov. 2012.
21. I. Kastner and C. Monz. Automatic single-document key fact extraction from newswire articles. In EACL. Association for Computational Linguistics, Mar. 2009.
22. R. Katragadda, P. Pingali, and V. Varma. Sentence position revisited: a robust light-weight update summarization baseline algorithm. pages 46--52, June 2009.
23. C.-Y. Lin and E. Hovy. Identifying topics by position. In ANCL. Association for Computational Linguistics, Mar. 1997.
24. J. Liu, E. Wagner, and L. Birnbaum. Compare & contrast: using the web to discover comparable cases for news stories. In WWW, page 541, New York, New York, USA, May 2007. ACM.
25. C. Lutteroth, R. Strandh, and G. Weber. Domain Specific High-Level Constraints for User Interface Layout. Constraints, 13(3), Sept. 2008.
26. R. Mihalcea and P. Tarau. TextRank: Bringing order into texts. In EMNLP, 2004.
27. A. Nenkova. Automatic text summarization of newswire: lessons learned from the document understanding conference. In AAAI. AAAI Press, July 2005.
28. A. Nenkova and L. Vanderwende. The impact of frequency on summarization. Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-101, Microsoft Research, 2005.
29. L. Pevzner and M. A. Hearst. A critique and improvement of an evaluation metric for text segmentation. Computational Linguistics, 2002.
30. H. Schütze and C. Silverstein. Projections for efficient document clustering. In SIGIR, pages 74--81, New York, New York, USA, Dec. 1997. ACM Request Permissions.
31. A. Scoditti and W. Stuerzlinger. A new layout method for graphical user interfaces. In TIC-STH, pages 642--647. IEEE, 2009.
32. Y. Seki, K. Eguchi, and N. Kando. Compact Summarization for Mobile Phones. Mobile and Ubiquitous Information Access, 2954(Chapter 13):172--186, 2004.
33. J. Seo and W. B. Croft. Unsupervised estimation of dirichlet smoothing parameters. In SIGIR '10, pages 759--760, New York, New York, USA, 2010. ACM Press.
34. T. A. van Dijk. News as discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1988.
35. T. Weninger, W. H. Hsu, and J. Han. CETR: content extraction via tag ratios. WWW 2010, 2010.
36. C. C. Yang and F. L. Wang. Automatic summarization of nancial news delivery on mobile devices. In WWW'03, 2003.
37. C. C. Yang and F. L. Wang. Hierarchical summarization of large documents. J. of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), Apr. 2008.
38. C. Zeidler, J. Müller, C. Lutteroth, and G. Weber. Comparing the usability of grid-bag and constraint-based layouts. In OzCHI, pages 674--682, New York, New York, USA, Nov. 2012. ACM Request Permissions.
39. C. Zhai. Statistical Language Models for Information Retrieval. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2009.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Computers in other domains

    • Personal computers and PC applications

    • Publishing