Cited by 3,775Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques

Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networks

Open access
See, Abigail, Liu, Peter J., Manning, Christopher D.·2017·Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Neural sequence-to-sequence models have provided a viable new approach for abstractive text summarization (meaning they are not restricted to simply selecting and rearranging passages from the original text).However, these models have two shortcomings: they are liable to reproduce factual details inaccurately, and they tend to repeat themselves.In this work we propose a novel architecture that augments the standard sequence-to-sequence attentional model in two orthogonal ways.First, we use a hybrid pointer-generator network that can copy words from the source text via pointing, which aids accurate reproduction of information, while retaining the ability to produce novel words through the generator.Second, we use coverage to keep track of what has been summarized, which discourages repetition.We apply our model to the CNN / Daily Mail summarization task, outperforming the current abstractive state-of-the-art by at least 2 ROUGE points.

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/p17-1099

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Relying on inference-time methods that are closer in behavior to context-based losses provides a reasonable solution to the trade-off between novelty and consistency when prioritizing control, as long as the language model's distribution is sufficiently confident in its decisions.

    “this work found that relying on inference-time methods (Fan et al., 2018; Holtzman et al., 2019) that are closer in behavior to context-based losses (See et al., 2017; Welleck et al., 2019) provides a reasonable solution as long as the distribution of the language model is sufficiently confident in its decisions.”

    From CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generation (2019) · cites this paper as See et al., 2017

  • The [91] model uses a multi-source encoder and an attention-and-copy decoder, and was tested on CoQA against baselines and ablations.

    “A multi-source encoder along with a decoder based on attention and copy mechanism is employed for this task.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. In NIPS 2016 Workshop on Multi-class and Multi-label Learning in Extremely Large Label Spaces.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
See, A., Liu, P. J., & Manning, C. D.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2017
Pages
1073-1083
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2606974598
Cited by
3,775
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 126 · 2025: 230 · 2024: 292 · 2023: 490 · 2022: 516 · 2021: 758 · 2020: 603 · 2019: 520 · 2018: 220 · 2017: 20
FWCI
170.02
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Air Force Research Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
Keywords
abstractive summarization, pointer-generator network, coverage mechanism, sequence-to-sequence models, attention-based models, factual accuracy, repetition avoidance

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