文本摘要方法的比较研究与分析

Akinul Islam Jony, Anika Tahsin Rithin, Siam Ibne Edrish
{"title":"文本摘要方法的比较研究与分析","authors":"Akinul Islam Jony, Anika Tahsin Rithin, Siam Ibne Edrish","doi":"10.56532/mjsat.v4i2.231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Various text summarization methods, such as extractive, abstractive, and human abstraction concepts have been compared in terms of performance, each with its specialties and limitations. This research analyses comparisons among the methods and some of their techniques used in text summarization. Our initial contribution is to suggest a thorough overview of the methods. The research methodology aims to compare text summarization methods through a systematic literature review to understand the topic and select appropriate methods. The search method involves keyword-based and citation-based techniques using academic search engines. The comparison of methods will consider various evaluation criteria such as document structure, content importance, quantitative approach, qualitative approach, dependency on machine learning, sentence generation, central concept identification, human involvement, representation in mathematics, and historical approaches. The methods would be evaluated based on these criteria to provide an objective and comprehensive comparison. No method consistently produces accurate text summaries. The best course of action will depend on the particulars and constraints of the current work because each method has both positive and negative aspects. The two primary methods for text summarization were discovered to be extractive and abstractive. This comparison study analysed various text summary and revealing each method's positive attributes and drawbacks. By giving a comprehensive overview of the main two methods, this comparative analysis advances the subject of text summarizing.","PeriodicalId":496585,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Study and Analysis of Text Summarization Methods\",\"authors\":\"Akinul Islam Jony, Anika Tahsin Rithin, Siam Ibne Edrish\",\"doi\":\"10.56532/mjsat.v4i2.231\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Various text summarization methods, such as extractive, abstractive, and human abstraction concepts have been compared in terms of performance, each with its specialties and limitations. This research analyses comparisons among the methods and some of their techniques used in text summarization. Our initial contribution is to suggest a thorough overview of the methods. The research methodology aims to compare text summarization methods through a systematic literature review to understand the topic and select appropriate methods. The search method involves keyword-based and citation-based techniques using academic search engines. The comparison of methods will consider various evaluation criteria such as document structure, content importance, quantitative approach, qualitative approach, dependency on machine learning, sentence generation, central concept identification, human involvement, representation in mathematics, and historical approaches. The methods would be evaluated based on these criteria to provide an objective and comprehensive comparison. No method consistently produces accurate text summaries. The best course of action will depend on the particulars and constraints of the current work because each method has both positive and negative aspects. The two primary methods for text summarization were discovered to be extractive and abstractive. This comparison study analysed various text summary and revealing each method's positive attributes and drawbacks. By giving a comprehensive overview of the main two methods, this comparative analysis advances the subject of text summarizing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":496585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56532/mjsat.v4i2.231\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Journal of Science and Advanced Technology","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56532/mjsat.v4i2.231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

各种文本摘要方法,如提取法、抽象概念法和人工抽象概念法,都有各自的特点和局限性,并在性能方面进行了比较。本研究分析了这些方法之间的比较及其在文本摘要中使用的一些技术。我们的初步贡献是对这些方法进行全面概述。研究方法旨在通过系统的文献回顾来比较文本摘要方法,从而了解主题并选择合适的方法。搜索方法包括使用学术搜索引擎的基于关键词和基于引文的技术。方法比较将考虑各种评价标准,如文档结构、内容重要性、定量方法、定性方法、对机器学习的依赖、句子生成、中心概念识别、人工参与、数学表示法和历史方法。将根据这些标准对各种方法进行评估,以提供客观、全面的比较。没有一种方法能始终如一地生成准确的文本摘要。最佳方法取决于当前工作的具体情况和限制因素,因为每种方法都有积极和消极的方面。研究发现,文本摘要的两种主要方法是提取法和抽象法。这项比较研究分析了各种文本摘要方法,揭示了每种方法的优点和缺点。通过对这两种主要方法的全面概述,本比较分析推动了文本摘要这一主题的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparative Study and Analysis of Text Summarization Methods
This Various text summarization methods, such as extractive, abstractive, and human abstraction concepts have been compared in terms of performance, each with its specialties and limitations. This research analyses comparisons among the methods and some of their techniques used in text summarization. Our initial contribution is to suggest a thorough overview of the methods. The research methodology aims to compare text summarization methods through a systematic literature review to understand the topic and select appropriate methods. The search method involves keyword-based and citation-based techniques using academic search engines. The comparison of methods will consider various evaluation criteria such as document structure, content importance, quantitative approach, qualitative approach, dependency on machine learning, sentence generation, central concept identification, human involvement, representation in mathematics, and historical approaches. The methods would be evaluated based on these criteria to provide an objective and comprehensive comparison. No method consistently produces accurate text summaries. The best course of action will depend on the particulars and constraints of the current work because each method has both positive and negative aspects. The two primary methods for text summarization were discovered to be extractive and abstractive. This comparison study analysed various text summary and revealing each method's positive attributes and drawbacks. By giving a comprehensive overview of the main two methods, this comparative analysis advances the subject of text summarizing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effects of Over-burnt Bricks on Gradation, Water Absorption and Specific Gravity of Aggregates, Workability and Compressive Strength of Concrete IoT-enabled Smart Weather Stations: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Directions IoT-enabled Greenhouse Systems: Optimizing Plant Growth and Efficiency Improving Fish Quality and Yield: An Automated Monitoring System for Intensive Aquaculture Transformative Applications of IoT in Diverse Industries: A Mini Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1