Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automatic summarising: The state of the art

Spärck Jones, Karen·2007·Information Processing & Management
DOI 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.03.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.03.009

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 73 references

Research works printed but not linked: 88

  1. Ando, R. K. et al. (2000). Multi-document summarisation by visualising topical content. In Proceedings of the ANLP/NAACL-00 (pp. 79–88).
  2. Aone, C. et al. (1997). A scalable summarisation system using robust NLP. In Proceedings of the ACL-97. (pp. 66–73).
  3. Barzilay, R., & Elhadad, M. (1999). Using lexical chains for text summarisation. In Mani and Maybury (pp. 110–121).
  4. Barzilay, R., & Lapata, M. (2005). Modelling local coherence: An entity-based approach. In ACL 2000: Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 318–325).
  5. BMJ: British Medical Journal, http://www.bmjjournals.com (visited April 2006).
  6. Boguraev, B., & Kennedy, C. (1999). Salience-based content characterisation of text documents. In Mani and Maybury (pp. 99–110).
  7. Boguraev, B., Bellamy, R., & Swart, C. (2001) Summarisation miniaturisation: Delivery of news to hand-helds. In Proceedings of the NAACL-01 (pp. 99–108).
  8. Carberry, S. et al. (2004). Extending document summarisation to information graphics. In Proceedings of the ACL-04 (pp. 3–9).
  9. Chan, S. W. K. et al. (2000). Mining discourse markers for Chinese text summarisation. In Proceedings of the ANLP/NAACL-00 (pp. 11–20).
  10. Christel, M. G. et al. (2002). Collages as dynamic summaries for news video. In Proceedings of ACM Multimedia 2002. · doi:10.1145/641007.641120
  11. Corston-Oliver, S. (2001) Text compaction for display on very small screens. In Proceedings of the NAACL-2001 (pp. 89–98).
  12. Dorr, B. J. et al. (2005). A methodology for extrinsic evaluation of text summarisation. In Proceedings of the ACL-05 (pp. 1–8).
  13. Douzidia, F. S., & Lapalme, G. (2004). Lakhas, an Arabic summarising system. In Proceedings of the DUC 2004 (pp. 128–135).
  14. DUC: Proceedings of the DUC workshops 2001–2005. <http://duc.nist.gov/> (visited April 2006).
  15. Evans, 1995, POETIC: A system for gathering and disseminating traffic information, Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 1, 363, 10.1017/S1351324900000267 · doi:10.1017/s1351324900000267
  16. Farzinder, A., & Lapalme, G. (2004). Legal text summarisation by exploration of the thematic structure and argumentative roles. In Proceedings of the ACL-04 (pp. 27–34).
  17. Farzinder, A., & Lapalme, G. (2005). Production automatique du résumé de textes juridiques: évaluation de qualité et d’acceptabilité. In TALN 2005, Dourdan, France (Vol. 1, pp. 183–192).
  18. Filatova, E., & Hatzivassiloglou, V. (2004). Event-based extractive summarisation. In Proceedings of the ACL-04 (pp. 104–111).
  19. Furui, S. (2005) Spontaneous speech recognition and summarisation. In Proceedings of the second Baltic conference on human language technologies, Talinn, 2005 (pp. 39–50).
  20. Futrelle, R. (2004). Handling figures in document summarisation. In Proceedings of the ACL-04 (pp. 61–65).
  21. Grewal, A. et al. (2003). Multi-document summarisation using off-the-shelf compression software. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL-03 (pp. 17–24). · doi:10.3115/1119467.1119470
  22. Hachey, B., & Grover, C. (2004). A rhetorical status classifier for legal text summarisation. In Proceedings of the ACL 2004 text summarization branches out workshop, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 35–42).
  23. Hahn, 1990, Topic parsing: Accounting for text macro structures in full-text analysis, Information Processing and Management, 26, 135, 10.1016/0306-4573(90)90013-R · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(90)90013-r
  24. Hahn, U., & Reimer, U. (1999). ‘Knowledge-based text summarisation: Salience and generalisation for knowledge base abstraction’. In Mani and Maybury (2000) (pp. 215–222).
  25. Hand, T. F. (1997). A proposal for task-based evaluation of text summarisation systems. In Proceedings of the ACL-97 (pp. 31–38).
  26. Harabagiu, S., & Lacatusu, F. (2002). Generating single and multi-document summaries with GISTexter. In Proceedings of the DUC 2002 (pp. 30–38).
  27. Harman, D., & Over, P. (2004) The effects of human variation in DUC summarisation evaluation. In Proceedings of the ACL-04 (pp. 10–17).
  28. Hirao, T., Sasaki, Y., & Isozaki, H. (2001). An extrinsic evaluation for question-biased text summarisation on QA tasks. In Proceedings of the NAACL-01 (pp. 61–68).
  29. Hori, C., Hirao, T., & Isozaki, H. (2004). Evaluation measures considering sentence concatenation for automatic summarisation by sentence or word extraction. In Proceedings of the ACL-04 (pp. 82–88).
  30. Hovy, E., & Lin, C. -Y. (1999). Automated text summarisation in SUMMARIST, In Mani and Maybury (2000) (pp. 81–94).
  31. Jing, H. et al. (1998). Summarisation evaluation methods: Experiments and analysis. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98 (pp. 60–68).
  32. Kupiec, J., Pedersen, J., & Chen, F. (1995). A trainable document summariser. In Proceedings of the 18th annual international ACM-SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR 1995) (pp. 68–73).
  33. Lacatusu, V.F., Parker, P., & Harabagiu, S.M. (2003) Lite-GISTexter: Generating short summaries with minimal resources. In Proceedings of the DUC 2003 (pp. 122–128).
  34. Leskovec, J., Milic-Frayling, N., & Grobelnik, M. (2005). Impact of linguistic analysis on the semantic graph coverage and learning of document extracts. In Proceedings of the AAAI, 2005.
  35. Lin, C. -Y., & Hovy, E. (2002a). Automated multi-document summarisation in NeATS. In Proceedings of the human language technology conference (HLT 2002) (pp. 50–53). · doi:10.3115/1289189.1289255
  36. Lin, C. -Y., & Hovy, E. (2003). The potential and limitations of automatic sentence extraction for summarisation. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL-03, 2003 (pp. 73–80).
  37. Mani, I., Concepcion, K. and van Guilder, G. (2000) ‘Using summarisation for automatic briefing generation’,rr. In Proceedings of the ANLP/NAACL-00, 2000 (pp. 89–98). · doi:10.3115/1567564.1567574
  38. Marcu, D. (1999). Discourse trees are good indicators of importance in text. In Mani and Maybury (1999) (pp. 123–136).
  39. Marcu, D., & Gerber, L. (2001). An inquiry into the nature of multidocument abstracts, extracts and their evaluation. In Proceedings of the NAACL-01, 2001 (pp. 2–11).
  40. Maybury, 1995, Generating summaries from event data, Information Processing and Management, 31, 736, 10.1016/0306-4573(95)00025-C · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(95)00025-c
  41. Maynard, D. et al. (2002). Using a text engineering framework to build and extendable and portable IE-based summarisation system. In Proceedings of the ACL-02, 2002 (pp. 19–26). · doi:10.3115/1118162.1118165
  42. McKeown, 1995, Generating concise natural language summaries, Information Processing and Management, 31, 703, 10.1016/0306-4573(95)00026-D · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(95)00026-d
  43. McKeown, K., Jordan, D., & Hatzivassiloglou, V. (1998). Generating patient-specific summaries of online literature. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98, 1998 (pp. 34–43).
  44. Merlino, A, & Maybury, M. (1999). An empirical study of the optimal presentation of multimedia summaries of broadcast news. In Mani and Maybury (1999) (pp. 391–403).
  45. Miike, S. et al. (1994). A full-text retrieval system with a dynamic abstract generation function. In Proceedings of the 17th annual international ACM-SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR 94), 1994 (pp. 152–161). · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-2099-5_16
  46. Minel, J.-L., Nugier, S. & Piat, G. (1997). How to appreciate the quality of automatic text summarisation. In Proceedings of the ACL-97, 1997 (pp. 25–30).
  47. Moens, M.-F., Yttendaele, C., & Dumortier, J. (1997). Abstracting of legal cases: The SALOMON experience. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and the law, ACM, 1997 (pp. 114–122). · doi:10.1145/261618.261643
  48. Moens, 2000, Use of a text grammar for generating highlight abstracts of magazine articles, Journal of Documentation, 56, 520, 10.1108/EUM0000000007126 · doi:10.1108/eum0000000007126
  49. Murray, G., Renals, S., & Carletta, J. (2005). Extractive summarisation of meeting recordings. In Proceedings of the ACL-05, 2005.
  50. Nakao, Y. (2000). An algorithm for one-page summarisation of a long text based on thematic hierarchy detection. In ACL 2000: Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, 2000 (pp. 302–309).
  51. Nobata, C., Sekine, S. & Isahara, H. (2003). Evaluation of features for sentence extraction on different types of corpora. In Proceedings of the ACL-03, 2003. · doi:10.3115/1119312.1119316
  52. Oka, M., & Ueda, Y. (2000). Evaluation of phrase-representation summarisation based on information retrieval task. In Proceedings of the ANLP/NAACL-00, 2000 (pp. 59–68).
  53. Okurowski, M.E. et al. (2000). Text summariser in use: Lessons learned from real world deployment and evaluation. In Proceedings of the ANLP/NAACL-00, 2000 (pp. 49–58).
  54. Over, P., & Yen, J. (2004) Introduction to DUC 2004. Intrinsic evaluation of generic news text summarisation systems. In Proceedings of the DUC 2004, 2004 (pp. 1–21).
  55. Papernick, N. & Hauptmann, A. G. (2005). Summarisation of broadcast news video through link analysis of named entities. In Proceedings of the AAAI workshop on link analysis, 2005.
  56. Pollock, 1975, Automatic abstracting research at Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 15, 226, 10.1021/ci60004a008 · doi:10.1021/ci60004a008
  57. Radev, D., Fan, W., & Zhang, Z. (2001a). WebInEssence: A personalised web-based multi-document summarisation and recommendation system. In Proceedings of the NAACL-01, 2001 (pp. 79–88).
  58. Radev, D. et al. (2004) MEAD – a platform for multilingual summarisation. In Proceedings of LREC 2004, 2004.
  59. Reithinger, N. et al. (2000). Summarising multilingual spoken negotiation dialogues. In Proceedings of the ACL 2000: Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, 2000 (pp. 310–317).
  60. Rother, C. et al. (2006). AutoCollage. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH ’06: ACM transactions on graphics.
  61. Saggion, 2002, Generating informative-indicative summaries with SumUM, Computational Linguistics, 28, 497, 10.1162/089120102762671963 · doi:10.1162/089120102762671963
  62. Santos, E., Mohamed, A. A. & Zhao, Q. Automatic evaluation of summaries using document graphs. In Proceedings of the ACL-04, 2004 (pp. 66–73).
  63. Sato, S., & Sato, M. (1998). Rewriting saves extracted summaries. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98, 1998 (pp. 85–92).
  64. Sparck Jones, K. (2001). Factorial summary evaluation. In Proceedings of the DUC 2001, 2001.
  65. Sparck Jones, K. (2007). Automatic summarising: A review and discussion of the state of the art. Technical Report 679, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 2007.
  66. Strzalkowski, T. et al. (1999). ‘A robust practical text summariser. In Mani and Maybury (1999) (pp. 237–154).
  67. SUMMAC: TIPSTER Text Summarisation Evaluation Conference (SUMMAC). <http://www-nlpir.nist.gov/related_projects/tipster_summac/>.
  68. Sun, J. -T. et al. (2005). Web-page summarisation using click-through data. In Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM-SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR 2005), 2005 (pp. 194–201).
  69. Teufel, S., & Moens, M. (1998) . Sentence extraction and rhetorical classification for flexible abstracts. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98, 1998 (pp. 16–25).
  70. Teufel, S. (2001). Task-based evaluation of summary quality: Describing relationships between scientific papers. In Proceedings of the NAACL-01, 2001 (pp. 12–21).
  71. Thione, G. L. et al. (2004). Hybrid text summarisation: Combining external relevance measures with structural analysis. In Proceedings of the ACL-04 (pp. 51–55).
  72. Tucker, R. I. & Sparck Jones, K. (2005). Between shallow and deep: An experiment in automatic summarising, Technical Report 632, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 2005.
  73. Vandegehinste, V. & Pan, Y. (2004). Sentence compression for automated subtitling: A hybrid approach. In Proceedings of the ACL-04, 2004 (pp. 89–95).
  74. Vanderwende. L., Banko, M. & Menezes, A. (2004). Event-centric summary generation. In Proceedings of the DUC 2004, 2004 (pp. 76–81).
  75. Voorhees, 2005, Question answering in TREC, in Voorhees and Harman, 2005, 243
  76. Wasson, M. (2002). Using summaries in document retrieval. In Proceedings of the ACL-02, 2002 (pp. 37–44). · doi:10.3115/1118162.1118167
  77. White, M. & Cardie, C. (2002). Selecting sentences for multi-document summaries with randomised local search. In Proceedings of the ACL-02, 2002 (pp. 9–18).
  78. Witbrock. M. J. & Mittal, V. O. (1999). Ultra-summarisation: A statistical approach to generating highly condensed non-extractive summaries. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM-SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR 1999), 1999 (pp. 314–315).
  79. Zhang, H., Chen, Z., Cai, Q., et al., (2003). A study for document summarisation based on personal annotation. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL-03 (pp. 41–48). · doi:10.3115/1119467.1119473
  80. Mani, I., Maybury, M., (Eds.), (1997). ACL-97: Intelligent scalable text summarisation, ACL.
  81. Hovy. E., Radev, D., (Eds.), (1998). AAAI-98: Intelligent text summarisation, AAAI Spring Symposium, AAAI.
  82. Hahn, U., Lin, C.-Y., Radev, D., (Eds.), (2000). ANLP/NAACL-00: Automatic summarisation, ACL.
  83. Goldstein, J., Lin, C.-Y., (Eds.), (2001). NAACL-01: Automatic summarisation, ACL.
  84. Hahn, U., Harman, D., (Eds.), (2000). ACL-02: Text summarisation, ACL.
  85. ACL-03: Multilingual summarisation and question answering, ACL, 2003.
  86. Radev, D., Teufel, S., (2003). HLT-NAACL-03: Text summarisation, ACL
  87. Moens, M.-F., Szpakowicz, S., (Eds.), (2004.). ACL-04: Text summarisation branches out, ACL.
  88. Goldstein, J., et al. (Eds.), (2005). ACL-05: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for MT and/or summarisation, ACL.

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
Spärck Jones, K.
Venue
Information Processing & Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
1449-1481
ISSN
  • 0020-0271 (ISSN-L)
  • 0306-4573
DOI
10.1016/j.ipm.2007.03.009
OpenAlex
W2085625396
Cited by
353
References
73
FWCI
24.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automatic summarising: The state of the art. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.03.009
The paper
Spärck Jones, K. (2007). Automatic summarising: The state of the art. Information Processing & Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.03.009

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.