The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Don’t Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization
Open accessAbstract
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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
(2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944937 · Cited by 32,337
Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate
Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.0473 · Cited by 16,213
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2002) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1120.003.0082 · Cited by 12,683
(2010) · Cited by 8,261
On the difficulty of training recurrent neural networks
Pascanu, R., Mikolov, T., & Bengio, Y. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1211.5063 · Cited by 4,310
Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networks
See, A., Liu, P. J., & Manning, C. D. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1099 · Cited by 3,775
(2013) · Cited by 3,740
A Neural Attention Model for Abstractive Sentence Summarization
Rush, A. M., Chopra, S., & Weston, J. (2015) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1044 · Cited by 2,932
Teaching Machines to Read and ComprehendPreprint
Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Grefenstette, E., Espeholt, L., Kay, W., Suleyman, M., & Blunsom, P. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.03340 · Cited by 2,855
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590
“[en/es/ru/tr/vi → en] • XSum (Narayan et al., 2018) – Summarize a news article in a single sentence.”
BackgroundPrefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation
Li, X. L., & Liang, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.353 · Cited by 2,473
fairseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modeling
Ott, M., Edunov, S., Baevski, A., Fan, A., Gross, S., Ng, N., Grangier, D., & Auli, M. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-4009 · Cited by 2,475
Text Summarization with Pretrained Encoders
Liu, Y., & Lapata, M. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1387 · Cited by 1,934
Self-citationParameter-efficient fine-tuning of large-scale pre-trained language models
Ding, N., Qin, Y., Yang, G., Wei, F., Yang, Z., Su, Y., Hu, S., Chen, Y., Chan, C.-M., Chen, W., et al. (2023) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00626-4 · Cited by 1,191
Metadata
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
