<!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>USI Participation at SMERP 2017 Text Summarization Task</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Anastasia Giachanou</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ida Mele</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Fabio Crestani</string-name>
          <email>fabio.crestanig@usi.ch</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Universita della Svizzera italiana (USI)</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Lugano</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CH">Switzerland</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>This short report describes the participation of the Universita della Svizzera italiana (USI) at the SMERP Workshop Data Challenge Track for the task text summarization of Level 1. Our participation is based on a linear interpolation for combining relevance and novelty scores of the retrieved tweets. Our method is fully automatic. For the relevance score we used the results from our runs at the text retrieval task whereas for the novelty we used a method based on Word2Vec. In total, we submitted four di erent runs and we used two di erent weight parameters. The results showed that when relevance and novelty have an equal contribution in selecting the tweets to use for the summary, the performance is better compared to favoring only the novelty. Additionally, information from POS tags improves the performance of the summarization task.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Twitter</kwd>
        <kwd>emergency situations</kwd>
        <kwd>text summarization</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Recent years have seen the rapid growth of social media platforms (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter, Google+) that enable people to share information on the web
with a simple way. People use social media platforms for a number of di erent
reasons that range from writing their opinions on products to sharing
information on emergency situations.</p>
      <p>
        Twitter1, one of the most popular microblogs, is a good source of information
and mining it can be very useful to assist relief operations in emergency
situations. However, a large number of data is posted online, hence it is very di cult
to extract and summarize useful information from tweet. Tweet
summarization aims to automatically generate a condensed version of the most important
content from the tweets that are relevant to a speci c information need. Past
research work on tweet summarization focused on topic-level summarization.
Shari et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] proposed a technique based on nding the most commonly used
phrases for a topic to create topic-related summaries. Inouye and Kalita [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]
proposed to use clustering methods for selecting the posts to add to the summary
whereas Chakrabarti et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] proposed a methodology based on Hidden Markov
Model.
1 https://twitter.com/
      </p>
      <p>
        Other researchers have analyzed Twitter data for nding newsworthy
stories [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] or for understanding what caused a change in the opinion of users [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ].
These works are related to the task of information extraction and are orthogonal
to the problem of text summarization which is based on a speci c information
need (e.g., a query or a topic).
      </p>
      <p>In this short report, we present our methodology for the text summarization
task at the Exploitation of Social Media for Emergency Relief and Preparedness
(SMERP) data challenge. Our participation is based on a linear interpolation
which combines relevance and novelty scores of the retrieved tweets.</p>
      <p>
        For computing the relevance scores we used the same techniques used for the
runs we submitted to the SMERP Data Challange Track of the text retrieval
task. Our rst submitted run for this task was based on plain query expansion
whereas the second one used additional information from POS tags. A detailed
description of the methodology we proposed for the task of text retrieval is
provided in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Our summarization methods are fully automatic. We submitted four di erent
runs for the summarization task (i.e., two for each of the two runs used in the
text retrieval task). For each of them we assigned a di erent weight parameter
which represents the importance of relevance and novelty of tweets and allows
to produce a list of relevant and at the same time diverse tweets which can be
used in the summary.</p>
      <p>
        To compute the novelty of each tweet, we decided to use a metric that is
based on text similarity. For computing this similarity we used a methodology
based on word embeddings. More speci cally, we used Word2Vec [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] to produce
word embeddings able to capture the semantic similarity. Word embeddings have
been used in several application including topic extraction [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ] and sentiment
analysis [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref8">8, 10</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>The results showed that setting the weight parameter to 0.5 (i.e., relevance
and novelty have an equal contribution) performs better compared to favoring
only the diversity. In addition, we could observe that information from POS tags
improves the performance in the summarization task.</p>
      <p>This report is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the methodology we
adopted for the task of text summarization. In Section 3 we present the results
of our experiments, and Section 4 concludes the report.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Methodology</title>
      <p>For this task, we used a fully automatic method to extract summaries based on
the linear interpolation of relevance and novelty scores. The novelty is quanti ed
as the diversity of the current tweet with respect to the other tweets in the
relevance ranking that can be selected for the text summary.</p>
      <p>
        For the summarization we used the tweets retrieved in the two runs of the
text retrieval task [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. More formally, let ti be a tweet with position i in the
relevance ranking for a query, we computed the following summary score:
S(ti) =
rel(ti) + (1
) div(ti)
where rel(ti) is the normalized relevance score of the tweet ti, and div(ti) is the
diversity score of ti. The weight parameter balances relevance and diversity, in
particular, the larger the value of , the more diversity is rewarded. We submitted
4 runs: USI 1 1 and USI 2 1 with = 0:5 in order to give same importance to
relevance and diversity; USI 1 2 and USI 2 2 with = 0:8 to favor the diversity.
      </p>
      <p>The diversity score refers to the novelty of each tweets that is in the result
list and is calculated as:
div(ti) = 1</p>
      <p>maxSim(ti)
where maxSim(ti) is the maximum similarity between the tweet ti and each of
the tweets that were retrieved before it:</p>
      <p>maxSim(ti) = maxj2f1;:::;i 1gsim(ti; tj )</p>
      <p>
        Such similarity is computed by using a methodology based on Word2Vec2.
We use Word2Vec [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] to produce word embeddings because we want to capture
the semantic similarity, too. To train the model, we use an external collection
Ce and we set the window to 5.
      </p>
      <p>The collection Ce consists of the tweets posted during Nepal earthquake that
occurred on the 25th of April 2015. To be more speci c, the original collection
contains 90,000 tweets posted from the 1st to the 5th of May 2015. To use the
collection for the training, we rst removed the URLs, some speci c characters
(e.g., @, #), and the retweets. Then, we ltered out terms that are speci c
to Nepal earthquake by extracting the entities related to geographical names
or people (e.g., Kathmandu, Mahadevstan, Rahul Gandhi) and removing all of
them. At the end of this cleaning process we had 22,017 tweets, 198,280 tokens,
and 12,379 unique tokens.</p>
      <p>After having computed the summary scores, we ranked the tweets based on
their decreasing values and took the rst tweets in the summary-score ranking
in order to have a summary up to 300 words.</p>
      <p>Table 1 shows the summary of the submitted runs for the task of text
summarization for Level 1.
2 The library used for Word2Vec: https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/models/word2vec.html</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Results</title>
      <p>Finally we should note that our runs were the only fully automatic methods
submitted for text summarization at Level 1 and therefore we can not directly
compare the performance of our methods to the one achieved by the approaches
submitted by the other groups.
4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>In this short report we presented the participation of the Universita della Svizzera
italiana (USI) at the SMERP Workshop Data Challenge Track for the task text
summarization at Level 1. Our participation was based on a linear interpolation
for combining relevance and novelty scores of the retrieved tweets. We
submitted four di erent runs. The results showed that setting the weight parameter
to 0.5 performs better compared to favoring diversity. In addition, the results
showed that using information from POS tags yields better performance in the
summarization task.</p>
      <p>Acknowledgments. This research was partially funded by the Swiss National
Science Foundation (SNSF) under the project OpiTrack.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Becker</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Naaman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gravano</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Beyond Trending Topics: Real-World Event Identi cation on Twitter</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>438</volume>
          {
          <fpage>441</fpage>
          . ICWSM '
          <volume>11</volume>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chakrabarti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Punera</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Event summarization using tweets</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>66</volume>
          {
          <fpage>73</fpage>
          . ICWSM '
          <volume>11</volume>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Giachanou</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mele</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Crestani</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Explaining sentiment spikes in twitter</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>2263</volume>
          {
          <fpage>2268</fpage>
          . CIKM '
          <volume>16</volume>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Giachanou</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mele</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Crestani</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>USI Participation at SMERP 2017 Text Retrieval Task</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of Exploitation of Social Media for Emergency Relief and Preparedness (SMERP) Workshop (Data Challenge Track)</source>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Inouye</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalita</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Comparing twitter summarization algorithms for multiple post summaries</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>298</volume>
          {
          <fpage>306</fpage>
          . SocialCom '
          <volume>11</volume>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chua</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sun</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Topical word embeddings</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Arti cial Intelligence</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>2418</volume>
          {
          <fpage>2424</fpage>
          . AAAI '
          <volume>15</volume>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mikolov</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Corrado</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dean</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>E cient estimation of word representations in vector space</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations. ICLR '13</source>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Severyn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Moschitti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Twitter sentiment analysis with deep convolutional neural networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>959</volume>
          {
          <fpage>962</fpage>
          . SIGIR '
          <volume>15</volume>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shari</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hutton</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalita</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Summarizing microblogs automatically</article-title>
          . In: Human Language Technologies:
          <article-title>The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics</article-title>
          . pp.
          <volume>685</volume>
          {
          <fpage>688</fpage>
          . HLT '
          <volume>10</volume>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wei</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Qin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhou</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Building large-scale twitter-speci c sentiment lexicon: A representation learning approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>172</volume>
          {
          <fpage>182</fpage>
          . COLING '
          <volume>14</volume>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>