Cited by 1,207Topic ModelingAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Don’t Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization

Open access
Narayan, Shashi, Cohen, Shay B., Lapata, Mirella·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

We introduce extreme summarization, a new single-document summarization task which does not favor extractive strategies and calls for an abstractive modeling approach.The idea is to create a short, one-sentence news summary answering the question "What is the article about?".We collect a real-world, large scale dataset for this task by harvesting online articles from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).We propose a novel abstractive model which is conditioned on the article's topics and based entirely on convolutional neural networks.We demonstrate experimentally that this architecture captures longrange dependencies in a document and recognizes pertinent content, outperforming an oracle extractive system and state-of-the-art abstractive approaches when evaluated automatically and by humans. 1

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/d18-1206

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These benchmarks often originate from human-written datasets such as XSum, OpenWebText, and Wikipedia.

    “These benchmarks often originate from human-written datasets such as XSum [Narayan et al., 2018], OpenWebText [Gokaslan and Cohen, 2019], and Wikipedia.”

    From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Narayan et al., 2018

  • AGGREFACT is a factual consistency evaluation benchmark for new summarization, targeting CNN(/DM) and XSum.

    “AGGREFACT (Tang et al., 2023a) is a factual consistency evaluation benchmark for new summarization, targeting CNN(/DM) (Nallapati et al., 2016) and XSum (Narayan et al., 2018).”

    From MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents (2024) · cites this paper as Narayan et al., 2018

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018b. Ranking sentences for extractive summarization with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , New Orleans, USA.
  2. Ramakanth Pasunuru and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Multireward reinforced summarization with saliency and entailment. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , New Orleans, USA.
  3. Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointergenerator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Narayan, S., Cohen, S. B., & Lapata, M.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2018
Pages
1797-1807
OpenAlex
W2888482885
Cited by
1,207
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 151 · 2024: 132 · 2023: 267 · 2022: 199 · 2021: 238 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 1
FWCI
38.58
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 688139)
  • H2020 European Research Council (681760)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
single-document summarization, abstractive summarization, convolutional neural networks, long-range dependencies, summarization datasets

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