<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Fusion of Heterogeneous Information in Graph-Based Ranking for Query-Biased Summarization</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Kotaro Sakamoto</string-name>
          <email>@forest.eis.ynu.ac.jp</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Hideyuki Shibuki</string-name>
          <email>shib@forest.eis.ynu.ac.jp</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Tatsunori Mori</string-name>
          <email>mori@forest.eis.ynu.ac.jp</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Noriko Kando</string-name>
          <email>kando@nii.ac.jp</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>National Institute of</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Informatics</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Yokohama National University</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Yokohama National University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>sakamoto</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>We propose a graph-based ranking method for query-biased summarization in a three-layer graph model consisting of document, sentence and word-layers. The model has a representation that fuses three kinds of heterogeneous information: part-whole relationships between di erent linguistic units, similarity using the overlap of the Basic Elements (BEs) in the statements, and semantic similarity between words. In an experiment using the text summarization test collection of Nakano et al., our proposed method achieved the best result of the ve considered methods, which were based on other graph models with an average R-Precision of 0.338.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;graph-based ranking</kwd>
        <kwd>multi-layer graph model</kwd>
        <kwd>query-biased summarization</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>
        Query-biased summarization, which is a multi-document
summarization method customized to re ect the information
need expressed in a query[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ], has increased in importance
for accessing user-preferred information. Following TextRank[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]
and LexRank[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], which use graph-based ranking algorithms
for sentence selection in summarization, several versions of
graph-based ranking algorithms have been proposed for
querybiased summarization[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11 ref3 ref4 ref7">3, 4, 7, 11</xref>
        ]. Graph-based ranking
algorithms are advantageous because they do not only rely
on the local context of a text unit, but rather they
consider information recursively drawn from the entire text[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ].
Hu et al.[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] proposed an extension of the Co-HITS-Ranking
algorithm by naturally fusing sentence-level and
documentlevel information in a graph model to take into account the
strength of document-to-document and sentence-to-document
correlation. Their graph model has document and sentence
layers with links between two homogeneous nodes and links
between two heterogeneous nodes. The homogeneous nodes
are de ned as nodes in the same layer, and the heterogeneous
nodes are de ned as ones in di erent layers. The link weight
for homogeneous nodes is similarity based on the degree of
word-overlap between two sentences or two documents, and
the link weight for heterogeneous nodes is similarity based on
the degree of word-overlap between a sentence and a
document. Note that the link weights are homogeneous in nature
(based on word overlap) even if the nodes are heterogeneous.
Here, we are interested in the behavior when link weights of
di erent natures and di erent layers such as the word layer
are introduced into the graph model in addition to the
sentence and document layers used in the Hu et al. model.
Kaneko et al.[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] proposed a four-layer graph model that
consists of document, passage, sentence and word layers to
comprehensively select adequate passages for summaries. In
their model, two nodes from di erent layers are linked in
accordance with part-whole relationships. For example, if a
sentence contains a word, the corresponding sentence layer
node is linked to the corresponding word-layer node. If
another sentence contains the same word, the corresponding
sentence-layer node is also linked to the same word-layer
node. This is another representation of word overlap
between sentences, which is distinct from word overlap using
link weight. In this paper, we use a three-layer graph model,
which consists of document, sentence, and word layers, based
on part-whole relationships. Because we are not interested
in passage selection, we do not use the passage layer. We use
the Basic Elements (BEs), which are minimal semantic units
and represent dependencies between the words in a sentence
originally proposed by Hovy et al.[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ], as units for
calculating the meaning of a statement in the proposed three-layer
model although Hovy et al. was not graph-based. Because
BEs can more exactly represent the meaning of a statement
than words, we use similarity based on the degree of BE
overlap instead of word overlap as link weights in the sentence
and document layers. Moreover, as link weights in the word
layer, we use semantic similarity based on a thesaurus. We
attempt to improve graph-based ranking by fusing the above
three heterogeneous natures, which are part-whole
relationships between di erent linguistic units, BE-overlap
similarity between sentences or documents, and semantic similarity
between words.
Sentence
Layer
      </p>
      <p>Sq
Word
Layer
W4</p>
      <p>S3</p>
      <p>W5
BE-overlapsimilarity</p>
      <p>Semanticsimilarity</p>
      <p>Part-wholerelationships</p>
      <p>In this paper, we propose a graph-based ranking method
for query-biased summarization by extending the
Co-HITSRanking algorithm to a three-layer graph model that has a
representation fusing three kinds of heterogeneous
information. Although we used Japanese texts in the experiment,
the proposed graph model and algorithm are language
independent. We suppose that a query is given as a sentence.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. GRAPH MODEL</title>
      <p>
        Figure 1 shows the graph model for fusing heterogeneous
information. The model consists of three layers for
representing the di erent linguistic units of a given document
set, namely the document, sentence, and word layers.
Two nodes in the document or sentence layers are linked
with each other using BE-overlap similarity. The BE-overlap
similarity link is represented by a solid bold arrow in Figure
1. The BE-overlap similarity simBE(ni; nj ) between two
nodes ni and nj is de ned as
simBE(ni; nj ) = jsetBE(ni) \ setBE(nj )j ;
jsetBE(ni) [ setBE(nj )j
(1)
where setBE(n) is the set of BEs used in a linguistic unit,
which is a document or sentence, corresponding to n.
Moreover, simBE (ni; nj) is a value in the interval [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">0,1</xref>
        ]. As the
rate of BEs commonly used in ni and nj increases, the value
of simBE (ni; nj ) becomes higher.
      </p>
      <p>Two nodes in the word layer are linked with each other
using semantic similarity based on a thesaurus. The semantic
similarity link is represented by a dashed arrow in Figure 1.
The semantic similarity simsem(ni; nj ) between two
wordlayer nodes ni and nj is de ned as
simsem(ni; nj ) =</p>
      <p>M D
maxc2hyper(ck;cl) depth(c)</p>
      <p>
        M D
;
(2)
where M D is the maximum depth of the thesaurus, ck and
cl are the concepts in the thesaurus corresponding to ni and
nj , respectively, hyper(ck; cl) is a set of thesaurus concepts
that subsume both ck and cl, and depth(c) is the depth of
concept c in the thesaurus. Here, simsem(ni; nj ) is a value in
the interval [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">0,1</xref>
        ]. When the distance between nodes ni and
nj decreases, the value of simsem(ni; nj) becomes higher.
Two nodes in neighboring layers, namely between the
document and sentence layers or between the sentence and word
layers, are linked with each other using part-whole
relationships. The part-whole relationship link is represented as a
solid thin arrow in Figure 1. If a linguistic unit in the
upper layer contains a unit in the lower layer, a part-whole
relationship link can be drawn. For example, if a sentence
in the sentence layer contains word w, a part-whole
relationship link is drawn between the node for the sentence
in the sentence layer and the node for word w in the word
layer. The link weight of part-whole relationships is xed
to 1. Note that a part-whole relationship link between the
document and sentence layers indicates that the document
contains words used in the sentence. Therefore, two nodes
in the document and word layers are not directly linked.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. ALGORITHM</title>
      <p>The proposed method takes a query sentence and a set of
documents as input and ranks all sentences in the
documents, in order of relevance to the query, using the extended
Co-HITS-Ranking algorithm. The proposed method is
performed in four stages. The rst stage makes a graph
representing the query and documents. The second stage assigns
initial ranking scores Rq to all nodes in the graph. The
third stage calculates homogeneous ranking scores Ro
according to recommendations among the neighboring
homogeneous nodes. The fourth stage calculates heterogeneous
ranking scores Re, which are the nal ranking scores,
according to recommendations among the neighboring
heterogeneous nodes.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>3.1 Constructing the Graph</title>
      <p>The graphical representation of query sentence is given as
follows. The node for the query is added to the sentence
layer. Another node corresponding to the query, which is
regarded as a pseudo-document, is added to the document
layer. Nodes of words used in the query are added to the
word layer. The above-mentioned nodes are de ned as query
nodes in the lump. The graphical representation of the
input documents is given as follows. One node per document
is added to the document layer. Nodes corresponding to
sentences or words used in the document are added to the
sentence or word layers, respectively. Finally, two nodes
in neighboring layers are linked based on part-whole
relationships, two nodes in the document or sentence layers are
linked using BE-overlap similarity, and two nodes in the
word layer are linked using semantic similarity.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>3.2 Assigning Initial Scores</title>
      <p>The initial ranking score Rq(n) of node n is de ned as
Rq(n) =
1 (if n is a query node)
0 (otherwise) :
(3)
This is a simple criterion that Rq(n) is 1 if n is a query node;
otherwise, Rq(n) is 0.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>3.3 Ranking Homogeneous Nodes</title>
      <p>The ranking of homogeneous nodes in a layer is performed
separately from ranking in other layers. When we de ne a
link weight simo(ni; nj) between homogeneous nodes ni and
ssiimmsBeEm((nnii;;nnjj)) ((iofththeerwyiasree) word-layer nodes) ; (4)
simo(ni; nj ) =
the homogeneous ranking score Ro(ni) of ni is repeatedly
calculated until the value converges according to the
following expression:
Ro(ni) =
do</p>
      <p>X
nj2In(ni)</p>
      <p>simo(ni; nj )</p>
      <sec id="sec-6-1">
        <title>Pnk2Out(nj) simo(nj ; nk)</title>
        <p>
          +(1
do)Rq(ni);
Ro(nj )
(5)
where In(ni) is a set of nodes linked to ni, Out(nj ) is a
set of nodes linked from nj , and do is a trade-o parameter
in the interval [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">0,1</xref>
          ]. As the value of do increases, more
importance is given to ranking scores from the neighborhood
homogeneous nodes compared to the initial score.
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>3.4 Ranking Heterogeneous Nodes</title>
      <p>The ranking of heterogeneous nodes in neighboring layers is
performed as follows. When a link weight simP W (ni; nj )
between heterogeneous nodes ni and nj is de ned as the
same value as the link weight of part-whole relationships,
the heterogeneous ranking score Re(ni) of ni is repeatedly
calculated until the value converges according to the
following expression:
Re(ni) =
de</p>
      <p>X
nj2In(ni)</p>
      <p>simP W (ni; nj )</p>
      <sec id="sec-7-1">
        <title>Pnk2Out(nj) simP W (nj ; nk)</title>
        <p>
          +(1
de)Ro(ni);
Re(nj )
(6)
where de is a trade-o parameter in the interval [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">0,1</xref>
          ]. As
the value of de increases, more importance is given to
ranking scores from the neighborhood heterogeneous nodes
compared to the initial score. Finally, all sentences are ranked
and returned in the order of the Re values of the
sentencelayer nodes, with the exception of the query node.
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>4. EXPERIMENT</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>4.1 Experimental Setup</title>
      <p>To research e ects of fusing this heterogeneous information,
we perform experimental comparisons using the following
four graph models. The rst model has only sentence layer
like TextRank or LexRank and is referred to as \Only
Slayer." The second model has sentence and document layers
similar to the original Co-HITS-Ranking and is referred to
as \With D-layer." The third model has sentence and word
layers and is referred to as \With W-layer." The forth model
is the proposed model that has document, sentence and word
layers and is referred to as \Three layers." Note that links of
part-whole relationships are not included in the rst model
and that links of semantic similarity are not included in the
rst and second models.</p>
      <p>
        For the experimental data, we use the text summarization
test collection[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ] annotating sentence importance as
summary materials for the credibility of information on the Web.
The test collection has six query sentences, six sets of Web
source documents, 24 extractive summaries, and 24 free
descriptive summaries. The Web source documents are
retrieved via the search engine TSUBAKI[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] using query
sentences. Note that the documents are already biased to a
query sentence, in that they include many common words,
which will in uence the word- or BE-overlap similarity, such
as the words used in the query sentence. All sentences in
the Web documents are annotated by four human
annotators with binary labels regardless of whether the sentence
seems to be useful for generating the extractive summary.
Note that the annotators exhaustively applied the \useful"
label to sentences even if the sentences were not used as part
of the extractive summary. Therefore, we evaluate ranking
methods using the \useful" label. If a method can rank more
\useful" sentences above \useless" sentences, the method is
considered more e ective than other methods.
      </p>
      <p>For the evaluation measure, we use the average R-Precision1
ARP , which is the mean of the R-Precision values over a set
of Q queries. The R-Precision RP (q) is the precision at the
R-th position in the results ranking for query q that has
R \useful" sentences in the Web document set. The values
ARP and RP are calculated as follows:</p>
      <p>ARP = 1 X RP (q);</p>
      <p>Q
q2Q
RP (q) =
r
R
;
(7)
(8)
where r is the number of sentences among the top R
sentences that contains at least one \useful" label.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>4.2 Result and Discussion</title>
      <p>Figure 2 shows the changes in the average R-Precision
values when the trade-o parameters do and de change by
0.1 between 0.0 and 1.0. Table 1 shows the average
RPrecision values of the four methods at the condition that
1http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec15/appendices
/CE.MEASURES06.pdf
do = de = 0:5. The proposed method achieved the best
result. The results are improved as the number of layers in
the models except for \With D-layer" increases. Therefore,
we believe that fusing heterogeneous information improves
the graph-based ranking algorithm and that the proposed
model is e ective.</p>
      <p>Here, we describe why the result of \With D-layer" is worse
than the result of \Only S-layer." The rst reason is that
the retrieved Web source documents are already biased to
a query sentence. The second reason is that the same
nature of links are used in both document and sentence
layers. Therefore, the information in the document layer is very
similar to the information in the sentence layer. Because the
fusion of similar information cannot provide comprehensive
judgment, if there is wrong information in a layer, it
cannot be easily corrected by information in another layer. In
the case of \With D-layer," we believe that the information
of the sentence layer is deteriorated by its similar nature
of the document layer. On the other hand, the proposed
method was improved by fusing the word-layer information
more heterogeneously than the document-layer information.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>5. CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>In this paper, we proposed a graph-based ranking method
for query-biased summarization in a three-layer graph model
that consists of document, sentence, and word layers. The
model fuses part-whole relationships between di erent
linguistic units, BE-overlap similarity between statements, and
semantic similarity between words. In the experiment, the
proposed method achieved the best average R-Precision of
0.338. We con rmed that fusing heterogeneous information
improved the graph-based ranking algorithm when Web
documents retrieved by a query sentence were given as source
documents.</p>
      <p>
        In our future work, we will investigate the optimal
expressions for calculating the link weights and other kinds of links
and layers. Moreover, we will apply this method to answer
questions involving various context information. For
example, at the NTCIR-11 QA-Lab task[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], a challenge to make
QA systems answer questions of \world history" in real-world
university entrance exams was conducted. Because such QA
requires comprehensive judgment that considers various
context information, we believe that the proposed method is
well suited for the task.
      </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Erkan</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. R.</given-names>
            <surname>Radev</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Lexrank:
          <article-title>Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization</article-title>
          .
          <source>J. Artif. Int. Res.</source>
          ,
          <volume>22</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <volume>457</volume>
          {
          <fpage>479</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dec</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Hovy</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            yew
            <surname>Lin</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Zhou</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A be-based multidocument summarizer with query interpretation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proc. of DUC</source>
          <year>2005</year>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Hu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Ji</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Teng</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Co-hits-ranking based query-focused multi-document summarization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Information Retrieval Technology - 6th Asia Information Retrieval Societies Conference, AIRS</source>
          <year>2010</year>
          , Taipei, Taiwan, December 1-
          <issue>3</issue>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          . Proceedings, pages
          <volume>121</volume>
          {
          <fpage>130</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Kaneko</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Shibuki</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Nakano</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Miyazaki</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Ishioroshi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Mori</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Mediatory summary generation: Summary-passage extraction for information credibility on the web</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 23rd Paci c Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation</source>
          , PACLIC
          <volume>23</volume>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hong</surname>
            <given-names>Kong</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , China, December 3-
          <issue>5</issue>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          , pages
          <fpage>240</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>249</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Mihalcea</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Tarau</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Textrank:
          <article-title>Bringing order into texts</article-title>
          . In D. Lin and
          <string-name>
            <surname>D</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Wu, editors,
          <source>Proceedings of EMNLP 2004</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>404</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>411</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barcelona</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Spain,
          <year>July 2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>Association for Computational Linguistics</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Nakano</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Shibuki</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Miyazaki</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Ishioroshi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Kaneko</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Mori</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Construction of text summarization corpus for the credibility of information on the web</article-title>
          . In N. C. C. Chair),
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Choukri</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Maegaard</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Mariani</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Odijk</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Piperidis</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Rosner</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and D. Tapias, editors,
          <source>Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10)</source>
          , Valletta, Malta, may
          <year>2010</year>
          .
          <article-title>European Language Resources Association (ELRA).</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Otterbacher</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G. Erkan, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. R.</given-names>
            <surname>Radev</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Using random walks for question-focused sentence retrieval</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, HLT '05</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>915</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>922</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stroudsburg</surname>
          </string-name>
          , PA, USA,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>Association for Computational Linguistics</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Shibuki</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Sakamoto</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Kano</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Mitamura</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Ishioroshi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K. Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Itakura</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Mori</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Kando</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Overview of the ntcir-11 qa-lab task</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 11th NTCIR Conference</source>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Shinzato</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Shibata</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Kawahara</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Kurohashi</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Tsubaki:
          <article-title>An open search engine infrastructure for developing information access methodology</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Information Processing</source>
          ,
          <volume>20</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <volume>216</volume>
          {
          <fpage>227</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Tombros</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Sanderson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Advantages of query biased summaries in information retrieval</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '98</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>2</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>10</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>1998</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
            <surname>Wan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Yang</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Xiao</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Manifold-ranking based topic-focused multi-document summarization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Arti cal Intelligence</source>
          ,
          <source>IJCAI'07</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>2903</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>2908</fpage>
          , San Francisco, CA, USA,
          <year>2007</year>
          . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>