Comparing Semantic Models for Evaluating Automatic Document Summarization

Abstract. The main focus of this paper is the examination of semantic mod-elling in the context of automatic document summarization and its evaluation. The main area of our research is extractive summarization, more specifically, contrastive opinion summarization. And as it is with all summarization tasks, the evaluation of their performance is a challenging problem on its own. Nowadays, the most commonly used evaluation technique is ROUGE (Recall-Oriented Un-derstudy for Gisting Evaluation). It includes measures (such as the count of over-lapping n-grams or word sequences) for automatically determining the quality of summaries by comparing them to ideal human-made summaries. However, these measures do not take into account the semantics of words and thus, for example, synonyms are not treated as equal. We explore this issue by experimenting with various language models, examining their performance in the task of computing document similarity. In particular, we chose four semantic models (LSA, LDA, Word2Vec and Doc2Vec) and one frequency-based model (TfIdf), for extracting document features. The experiments were then performed on our custom dataset and the results of each model are then compared to the similarity values assessed by human annotators. We also compare these values with the ROUGE scores and observe the correlations between them. The aim of our experiments is to find a model, which can best imitate a human estimate of document similarity