Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,656

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Neural Attention Model for Abstractive Sentence Summarization

Open access
Rush, Alexander M., Chopra, Sumit, Weston, Jason·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Summarization based on text extraction is inherently limited, but generation-style abstractive methods have proven challenging to build.In this work, we propose a fully data-driven approach to abstractive sentence summarization.Our method utilizes a local attention-based model that generates each word of the summary conditioned on the input sentence.While the model is structurally simple, it can easily be trained end-to-end and scales to a large amount of training data.The model shows significant performance gains on the DUC-2004 shared task compared with several strong baselines.

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 · 10.18653/v1/d15-1044

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

Items 101–104 of 104

Metadata

Authors
Rush, A. M., Chopra, S., & Weston, J.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2015
Pages
379-389
OpenAlex
W1843891098
Cited by
2,656
References
5
FWCI
126.89
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

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.