Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

22
Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text Michael J. Paul, ChengXiang Zhai, Roxana Girju EMNLP’10 Speaker: Hsin-Lan, Wang Date: 2010/12/07

description

Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text. Michael J. Paul, ChengXiang Zhai, Roxana Girju EMNLP ’ 10 Speaker: Hsin-Lan, Wang Date: 2010/12/07. Outline. Introduction Modeling Viewpoints Topic-Aspect Model Features Multi-Viewpoint Summarization Comparative LexRank - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

Page 1: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

Michael J. Paul, ChengXiang Zhai, Roxana GirjuEMNLP’10

Speaker: Hsin-Lan, WangDate: 2010/12/07

Page 2: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

2

Outline Introduction Modeling Viewpoints

Topic-Aspect Model Features

Multi-Viewpoint Summarization Comparative LexRank Summary Generation

Experiment and Evaluation Conclusion

Page 3: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

3

Introduction

The amount of opinionated text available online has been growing rapidly.

In this paper, we study how to summarize opinionated text in a such a way that highlights contrast between multiple viewpionts.

Page 4: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

4

Introduction

Generate two types of multi-view summaries: macro multi-view summary

Contains multiple sets of sentences, each representing a different viewpoint.

micro multi-view summary Contains a set of pairs of contrastive

sentences.

Page 5: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

5

Modeling Viewpoints

Challenge: to model and extract viewpoints which are hidden in text.

Solve: Topic-Aspect Model (TAM)

Page 6: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

6

Modeling Viewpoints

TAM

Page 7: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

7

Modeling Viewpoints Features

Words baseline approach do not do any stop word removal stemming

Dependency Relations use Stanford parser full-tuple: rel(a,b) split-tuple: rel(a,*), rel(*,b)

Page 8: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

8

Modeling Viewpoints Features

Negation Rel(wi, wj), if either wi or wj is negated, then w

e simply rewrite it as . Polarity

use Subjectivity Clues lexicon amod(idea, good)→

amod(idea,+) and amod(*,good) →rel(a, - ).

Page 9: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

9

Modeling Viewpoints

Features Generalized Relations

use Stanford dependencies Rewrite rel(a,b) as Rrel(a,b).

Page 10: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

10

Multi-Viewpoint Summarization

Comparative LexRank Make it favor jumping to a good represen

tative excerpt x of any viewpoint v. Make it favor jumping between two excer

pts that can potentially form a good contrastive pair.

Page 11: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

11

Multi-Viewpoint Summarization

Comparative LexRank

Page 12: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

12

Multi-Viewpoint Summarization Summary Generation

Macro contrastive summarization Using the random walk stationary distribution across

all of the data to rank the excerpts. Separate the top ranked excerpts into two disjoint set

s. Remove redundancy and produce the summary.

Micro contrastive summarization Consist of a pair (xi,xj) with the pairwise relevance scor

e. Rank these pairs and remove redundancy.

Page 13: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

13

Experiments and Evaluation

Experimental Setup First dataset: 948 verbatim responses to

a Gallup phone survey about the 2010 U.S. healthcare bill.

Second dataset: use the Bitterlemons corpus, a collection of 594 editorials about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Page 14: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

14

Experiments and Evaluation

Stage One: Modeling Viewpoints

Page 15: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

15

Experiments and Evaluation

Stage Two: Summarizing Viewpoints Gold Standard Summaries

Gallup healthcare poll

Page 16: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

16

Experiments and Evaluation

Stage Two: Summarizing Viewpoints Baseline Approaches

Graph-based algorithms When λ=1, the random walk model only transition

s to sentences within the same viewpoint. The modified algorithm produces the same rankin

g as the unmodified LexRank. Model-based algorithms

Compare against the approach of Lerman and McDonald.

Page 17: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

17

Experiments and Evaluation

Stage Two: Summarizing Viewpoints Metrics

using the standard ROUGE evaluation metric For evaluating the macro-level summaries:

For evaluating the micro-level summaries:

Page 18: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

18

Experiments and Evaluation

Stage Two: Summarizing Viewpoints Evaluation Results

Page 19: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

19

Experiments and Evaluation

Unsupervised Summarization Bitterlemons corpus (without a gold set) Asked 8 people to guess if each viewpoint

’s summary was written by Israeli or Palestinian authors.

Page 20: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

20

Experiments and Evaluation

Unsupervised Summarization Macro-level summaries:

Correctly labeled 78% of the summary sets.

Micro-level summaries: Many of the sentences are mislabeled,

and the ones that are correctly labeled are not representative of the collection.

Page 21: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

21

Conclusion

Present steps toward a two-stage system that can automatically extract and summarize viewpoints in opinionated text.

First: the accuracy of clustering documents by viewpoint can be enhanced by using rich dependency features.

Page 22: Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text

22

Conclusion

Second: use Comparative LexRank to generate contrastive summaries both at the macro and micro level.