Application of rhetorical

Dhinaharan Nagamalai et al. (Eds) : CCSEA, DKMP, AIFU, SEA - 2015
pp. 73–92, 2015. © CS & IT-CSCP 2015 DOI : 10.5121/csit.2015.50207
APPLICATION OF RHETORICAL
RELATIONS BETWEEN SENTENCES TO
CLUSTER-BASED TEXT SUMMARIZATION
N. Adilah Hanin Zahri1
,Fumiyo Fukumoto2
,Matsyoshi Suguru2
and Ong Bi Lynn1
1
School of Computer and Communication,
University of Malaysia Perlis, Perlis, Malaysia
adilahhanin,drlynn@unimap.edu.my
2
Interdisplinary Graduate School of Medicine and Engineering,
University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
fukumoto@yamanashi.ac.jp, suguru@yamanashi.ac.jp
ABSTRACT
Many of previous research have proven that the usage of rhetorical relations is capable to
enhance many applications such as text summarization, question answering and natural
language generation. This work proposes an approach that expands the benefit of rhetorical
relations to address redundancy problem in text summarization. We first examined and
redefined the type of rhetorical relations that is useful to retrieve sentences with identical
content and performed the identification of those relations using SVMs. By exploiting the
rhetorical relations exist between sentences, we generate clusters of similar sentences from
document sets. Then, cluster-based text summarization is performed using Conditional Markov
Random Walk Model to measure the saliency scores of candidates summary. We evaluated our
method by measuring the cohesion and separation of the clusters and ROUGE score of
generated summaries. The experimental result shows that our method performed well which
shows promising potential of applying rhetorical relation in cluster-based text summarization.
KEYWORDS
Rhetorical Relations, Text Clustering, Extractive Text Summarization, Support Vector Machine,
Probability Model, Markov Random Walk Model
1. INTRODUCTION
The study on rhetorical relations between sentences has been introduced in the late 80's to
analyze, understand, and generate natural human-languages. Rhetorical relations hold sentences
or phrases in a coherent discourse and indicate the informative relations regarding an event. In
general, the rhetorical relations hold primarily between adjacent components with lexical
elements. Rhetorical relations are defined functionally, in terms of the effect the writer intends to
achieve by presenting two text spans. Up until now, researchers have developed several structures
to describe the semantic relations between words, phrases and sentences. Some of the well-known
structures are Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) [1], RST Treebank [2], Lexicalized Tree-
Adjoining Grammar based discourse [3], Cross-document Structure Theory (CST) [4][5] and
Discourse GraphBank[6]. Each work proposed different kind of methods to distinguish how

74 Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT)
events in text are related by identifying the transition point of a relation from one text span to
another. Here, similar to the TDT project, an event refers to something that occurs at a specific
place and time associated with some specific actions. In many structures, rhetorical relations is
defined by the effect of the relations, and also by different constrains that must be satisfied in
order to achieve this effect, and these are specified using a mixture of propositional and
intentional language. For instance, in RST structure, the Motivation relation specifies that one of
the spans presents an action to be performed by the reader; the Evidence relation indicates an
event (claim), which describes the information to increase the reader’s belief of why the event
occurred [2]. Rhetorical relations also describe the reference to the propositional content of spans
and which span is more central to the writer's purposes.
Therefore, the interpretation of how the phrases, clauses, and texts are semantically related to
each other described by rhetorical relations is crucial to retrieve important information from text
spans. These coherent structures have benefit various NLP applications such as text
summarization [7][8][9][10][11][12], question answering [13][14] and natural language
generation [15][16]. For instance, Litkowski proposed an approach that makes use of structural
information of sentences, such as the discourse entities and semantic relation to generate database
for question answering system [13]. In text summarization, discourse relations are used to
produce optimum ordering of sentences in a document and remove redundancy from generated
summaries. Our work focused on this area where we exploited the structure of rhetorical relations
among sentences in multi-document text summarization.
Text summarization is the process of automatically creating a summary that retains only the
relevant information of the original document. Generating summary includes identifying the most
important pieces of information from the document, omitting irrelevant information and
minimizing details. Automatic document summarization has become an important research area
in natural language processing (NLP), due to the accelerating rate of data growth on the Internet.
Text summarization limits the need for user to access the original documents and improves the
efficiency of the information search. Our work focused on extractive summarization in multiple
documents, which is finding the most salient sentences for the overall understanding of a given
document. The task becomes tougher to accomplish as the system also has to deal with multi-
document phenomena, such as paraphrasing and overlaps, caused by repeated similar information
in the document sets. In this work, we make use of the rhetorical relations to improve the retrieval
of salient sentences and redundancy elimination. We first examined and investigated the
definition of rhetorical relations from existed structure, Cross-document Structure Theory (CST)
[4][5]. We then redefined the rhetorical relations between sentences in order to perform an
automated identification of rhetorical relations using machine learning technique, SVMs. We
examined the surface features, i.e. the lexical and syntactic features of the text spans to identify
characteristics of each rhetorical relation and provide them to SVMs for learning and
classification module. We extended our work to the application of rhetorical relations in text
clustering and text summarization. The next section provides an overview of the existing
techniques. Section 3 describes the basic idea and methodology of our system. Finally, we report
experimental result with some discussion.
2. PREVIOUS WORK
Previous work has shown many attempts to construct coherent structures in order to examine how
the phrases, clauses, and texts are connected to each other [1][2][3][4][5][6]. In accordance with
the development of various coherent structures, there were also many works dedicated to explore
the benefit of rhetorical/discourse relations in NLP applications, especially in multi-document
text summarization [1][8][9][10][11][12] and question answering [13][14].The earliest structure
of rhetorical relation is defined by Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) proposed in 1988 [1]. RST

Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) 75
describes a text as hierarchically divided units. The units are asymmetrically related by a certain
rhetorical relations that usually consist of a nucleus and satellites. A nucleus refers to the claim or
information given regarding an event, while satellites refer to the evidence that supports the
claim. RST has been developed into more than 20 definitions of rhetorical relations to describe
structural patterns in text spans. On the other hand, Cross-document Structure Theory (CST)
[4][5] attempts to describe the relationships exist between two or more sentences from multiple
sources regarding the same topic. CST defines 18 types of rhetorical relations that accommodate
the relations between sentences from multiple documents. The CST relationship are defined in
term of relationship of the first sentence S1 to the second sentence S2. For instance, Equivalence
relation represents two text spans, S1 and S2 as having the same information content disregard the
different word usage and sequences. Besides RST and CST, other well-known coherent structures
are Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar Discourse [3], RST Treebank [2], and Discourse
GraphBank [6]. Discourse GraphBank represents discourse relation as graph structure, while
other works represent them as hierarchical structure between textual units. Each work proposed
different kind of method to distinguish how events in text are semantically connected among the
sentences.
Meanwhile, clustering of similar text refers to learning method of assigning a set of text into
groups, known as clusters. Two or more text spans are considered belong to the same cluster if
they are ``close'' according to a given similarity or distance. The clustering techniques are
generally divided into partitioning [17][18], hierarchical [19][20] and graph-based clustering [21].
K-means [17][22][23] is an example of a simple partition based unsupervised clustering
algorithm. The algorithm first defines the number of clusters, k to be created and randomly selects
k sentences as the initial centroid of each cluster. All sentences are iteratively assigned to the
closest cluster given the similarity distance between the sentence and the centroid and ends once
all sentences are assigned and the centroid are fixed. Another most used partitioning clustering
method is Fuzzy C-Means clustering [18][25]. Fuzzy C-means (FCM) is a method of clustering
which allows sentences to be gathered into two or more clusters. This algorithm assigns
membership level to each sentence corresponding to the similarity between the sentences and the
centroid of the cluster. The closer the sentences to the centroid, the stronger the connection to the
particular cluster. After each iteration, the membership grade and cluster center are updated.
Other than K-Means and Fuzzy C-Means, hierarchical clustering is also widely used for text
classification.
Text classification is one of many approach to multi-document text summarization. Multiple
documents usually discuss more than one sub-topic regarding an event. Creating summary with
wide diversity of each topic discussed in a multiple document is a challenging task for text
summarization. Therefore, cluster-based approaches have been proposed to address this
challenge. A cluster-based summarization groups the similar textual units into multiple clusters to
identify themes of common information and candidates summary are extracted from these
clusters [25][26][27]. Centroid based summarization method groups the sentences closest to the
centroid in to a single cluster [9][28]. Since the centroid based summarization approach ranks
sentences based on their similarity to the same centroid, the similar sentences often ranked closely
to each other causing redundancy in final summary. In accordance to this problem, MMR [29] is
proposed to remove redundancies and re-rank the sentences ordering. In contrast, the multi-
cluster summarization approach divides the input set of text documents in to a number of clusters
(sub-topics or themes) and representative of each cluster is selected to overcome redundancy
issue [30]. Another work proposed a sentences-clustering algorithm, SimFinder[31][32] clusters
sentences into several cluster referred as themes. The sentence clustering is performed according
to linguistic features trained using a statistical decision [33]. Some work observed time order and
text order during summary generation [34]. Other work focused on how clustering algorithm and
representative object selection from clusters affects the multi-document summarization

performance [35]. The main issue raised in multi-cluster summarization is that the topic themes
are usually not equally important. Thus, the sentences in an important theme cluster are
considered more salient than the sentences in a trivial theme cluster. In accordance to this issue,
previous work suggested two models, which are Cluster-based Conditional Markov Random
Walk Model (Cluster-based CMRW) and Cluster-based HITS Model [36]. The Markov Random
Walk Model (MRWM) has been successfully used for multi-document summarization by making
use of the “voting” between sentences in the documents [37][38][39]. However, MRWM uniform
use of the sentences in the document set without considering higher-level of information other
than sentence-level information. Differ with former model, Cluster-based CMRW incorporates
the cluster-level information into the link graph, meanwhile Cluster-based HITS Model considers
the clusters and sentences as hubs and authorities. Wan and Yang considers the theme clusters as
hubs and the sentences as authorities [36]. Furthermore, the coherent structure of rhetorical
relations has been widely used to enhance the summary generation of multiple documents
[40][41][42]. For instance, a paradigm of multi-document analysis, CST has been proposed as a
basis approach to deal with multi-document phenomenon, such as redundancy and overlapping
information during summary generation[8][9][10][11][12]. Many of CST based works proposed
multi-document summarization guided by user preferences, such as summary length, type of
information and chronological ordering of facts. One of the CST-based text summarization
approaches is the incorporation of CST relations with MEAD summarizer [8]. This method
proposes the enhancement of text summarization by replacing low-salience sentences with
sentences that have maximum numbers of CST relationship in the final summary. They also
observed the effect of different CST relationships against summary extraction. The most recent
work is a deep knowledge approach system, CST-based SUMMarizer or known as CSTSumm
[11]. Using CST-analyzed document, the system ranks input sentences according to the number
of CST relations exist between sentences. Then, the content selection is performed according to
the user preferences, and a multi-document summary is produced CSTSumm shows a great
capability of producing informative summaries since the system deals better with multi-document
phenomena, such as redundancy and contradiction.
3. FRAMEWORK
3.1. Redefinition of Rhetorical Relations
Our aim is to perform automated identification of rhetorical relations between sentences, and then
apply the rhetorical relations to text clustering and summary generation. Since that previous
works proposed various structure and definition of rhetorical relations, the structure that defines
rhetorical relations between two text spans is mostly appropriate to achieve our objective.
Therefore, we adopted the definition of rhetorical relation by CST [5]and examined them in order
to select the relevant rhetorical relations for text summarization. According to the definition by
CST, some of the relationship presents similar surface characteristics. Relations such
asParaphrase, Modality and Attribution share similar characteristic of information content with
Identity except for the different version of event description. Consider the following examples:
Example 1
S1:Airbus has built more than 1,000 single-aisle 320-family planes.
S2: It has built more than 1,000 single-aisle 320-family planes.
Example 2
S3 :Ali Ahmedi, a spokesman for Gulf Air, said there was no indication the pilot was planning an
emergency landing.

S4 : But Ali Ahmedi said there was no indication the pilot was anticipating an it emergency
landing.
Example 1 and 2 demonstrate an example of sentences pair that can be categorized as Identity,
Paraphrase, Modality and Attribution relations. The similarity of lexical and information in each
sentences pair is high, therefore these relations can be concluded as presenting the similar
relation. We also discovered similarity between Elaboration and Follow-up relations defined by
CST. Consider the following example:
Example 3
S5 :The crash put a hole in the 25th floor of the Pirelli building, and smoke was seen pouring
from the opening.
S6 : A small plane crashed into the 25th floor of a skyscraper in downtown Milan today.
Example 3 shows that both sentences can be categorized as Elaboration and Follow-up, where S5
describes additional information since event in S6 occurred. Another example of rhetorical
relations that share similar pattern is Subsumption and Elaboration, as shown in Example 4 and
Example 5, respectively.
Example 4
S7: Police were trying to keep people away, and many ambulances were at the scene. S8:
Police and ambulance were at the scene.
Example 5
S9 :The building houses government offices and is next to the city's central train station.
S10 :The building houses the regional government offices, authorities said.
S7contains additional information of S8in Example 4, hence describes that sentences pair
connected as Subsumption can also be defined as Elaboration. However, the sentences pair
belongs to Elaboration in Example 5 cannot be defined as Subsumption. The definition of
Subsumption denotes the second sentence as the subset of the first sentence, however, in
Elaboration, the second sentence is not necessary a subset of the first sentence. Therefore, we
keep Subsumption and Elaboration as two different relations so that we can precisely perform the
automated identification of both relations.
We redefined the definition of the rhetorical relations adopted from CST, and combined the
relations that resemble each other which have been suggested in our previous work
[43].Fulfillment relation refers to sentence pair which asserts the occurrence of predicted event,
where overlapped information present in both sentences. Therefore, we considered Fulfillment
and Overlap as one type of relation. As for Change of Perspective, Contradiction and Reader
Profile, these relations generally refer to sentence pairs presenting different information regarding
the same subject. Thus, we simply merged these relations as one group. We also combined
Description and Historical Background, as both type of relations provide description (historical
or present) of an event. We combined similar relations as one type and redefine these combined
relations. Rhetorical relations and their taxonomy used in this work is concluded in Table 1.

Table 1. Type and definition of rhetorical relations adopted from CST.
Relations by CST Proposed Relations Definition of Proposed Relation
Identity, Praphrase, Modality,
Attribution
Identity
Two text spans have the same information
content
Subsumption, Indirect
Speech, Citation
Subsumption
S1 contains all information in S2, plus other
additional information not in S2
Elaboration, Follow-up
Elaboration
S1 elaborates or provide more information
given generally in S2.
Overlap, Fullfillment
Overlap
S1 provides facts X and Y while S2 provides
facts X and Z; X, Y, and Z should all be non-
trivial
Change of Perspective,
Contradiction, Reader Profile
Change of Topics
S1 and S2 provide different facts about the
same entity.
Description, Historical
Background
Description
S1 gives historical context or describes an
entity mentioned in S2.
- No Relations No relation exits between S1 and S2.
By definition, although Change of Topics and Description does not accommodate the purpose of
text clustering, we still included these relations for evaluation. We also added No Relation to the
type of relations used in this work. We combined the 18 types of relations by CST into 7 types,
which we assumed that it is enough to evaluate the potential of rhetorical relation in cluster-based
text summarization.
3.2. Identification of Rhetorical Relations
We used a machine learning approach, Support Vector Machine (SVMs)[44]which have been
proposed by our previous work [43] to classify type of relations exist between each sentence pairs
in corpus. We used CST-annotated sentences pair obtained from CST Bank [5] as training data
for the SVMs. Each data is classified into one of two classes, where we defined the value of the
features to be 0 or 1. Features with more than 2 value will be normalized into [0,1] range. This
value will be represented by 10 dimensional space of a 2 value vector, where the value will be
divided into 10 value range of [0.0,0.1], [0.1,0.2], …, [0.9,1.0].For example, if the feature of text
span Sj is 0.45, the surface features vector will be set into 0001000000. We extracted 2 types of
surface characteristic from both sentences, which are lexical similarity between sentences and the
sentence properties. Although the similarity of information between sentences can be determined
only with lexical similarity, we also included sentences properties as features to emphasis which
sentences provide specific information, e.g. location and time of the event. We provided the
surface characteristics to SVMs for learning and classification of the text span S1 according to the
given text span S2
3.2.1 Lexical Similarity between Sentences
We used 4 similarity measurements to measure the amount of overlapping information among
sentences. Each measurement computes similarity between sentences from different aspects.
1. Cosine Similarity
Cosine similarity measurement is defined as follows:

∑∑
∑
×
×
=
i ii i
i ii
ss
ss
SS
2
,2
2
,1
,2,1
21
)()(
)(
),cos(
whereS1 and S2 represents the frequency vector of the sentence pair, S1 and S2, respectively. The
cosine similarity metric measures the correlation between the two sentences according to
frequency vector of words in both sentences. We observed the similarity of word contents, verb
tokens, adjective tokens and bigram words from each sentences pair. The cosine similarity of
bigram s is measured to determine the similarity of word sequence in sentences. The words
ordering indirectly determine the semantic meaning in sentences.
2. Overlap ratio of words from S1 in S2 , and vice versa
The overlap ratio is measured to identify whether all the words in S2 are also appear in S1, and
vice versa. This measurement will determine how much the sentences match with each other. For
instance, given the sentences pair with relations of Subsumption, the ratio of words from S2
appear in S1 will be higher than the ratio of words from S1 appear in Ss. We add this measurement
because cosine similarity does not extract this characteristic from sentences. The overlap ratio is
measured as follows:
)(
),(#
)(
1
21
1
Swords
SSscommonword
SWOL =
where “#commonword” and “#words” represent the number of matching words and the number of
words in a sentence, respectively. The feature with higher overlap ratio is set to 1, and 0 for lower
value. We measured the overlap ratio against both S1 and S2.
3. Longest Common Substring
Longest Common Substring metric retrieves the maximum length of matching word sequence
against S1, given two text span, S1 and S2, .
)(
)),((
)(
1
21
1
Slength
SStringMaxComSubslen
SLCS =
The metric value shows if both sentences are using the same phrase or term, which will benefit
the identification of Overlap or Subsumption.
4. Ratio overlap of grammatical relationship for S1
We used a broad-coverage parser of English language, MINIPAR [45] to parse S1 and S2, and
extract the grammatical relationship between words in the text span. Here we extracted the
number of surface subject and the subject of verb (subject) and object of verbs
(object). We then compared the grammatical relationship in S1 which occur in S2, compute as
follows:
)(1
),(1#
)(
1
21
1
SSubj
SScommonSubj
SSubjOve =

)(1
),(1#
)(
1
21
1
SObj
SScommonObj
SObjOve =
The ratio value describes whether S2 provides information regarding the same entity of S1,i.e.
Change of Topics. We also compared the subject in S1with noun of S2to examine if S1isdiscussing
topics about S2.
)(
)()(#
)(
1
21
1
SObj
SNounScommonSubj
SeSubjNounOv =
The ratio value will show if S1 is describing information regarding subject mention in S2,,
i.e.Description.
3.2.2 Sentences Properties
The type of information described in two text spans is also crucial to classify the type of discourse
relation. Thus, we extracted the following information as additional features for each relation.
1. Number of entities
Sentences describing an event often offer information such as the place where the event
occurs (location), the party involves (person, organization or subject), or when the event takes
place (time and date). The occurrences of such entities can indicate how informative the
sentence can be, thus can enhance the classification of relation between sentences. Therefore,
we derived these entities from sentences, and compared the number of entities between them.
We used Information Stanford NER (CRF Classifier: 2012 Version) of Named Entity
Recognizer [46] to label sequence of words indicating 7 types of entities (PERSON,
ORGANIZATION, LOCATION, TIME, DATE, MONEY and PERCENT). Based on the study
of training data from CSTBank, there are no significant examples of annotated sentences
indicates which entity points to any particular discourse relation. Therefore, in the
experiment, we only observed the number of sentences entities in both text spans. The
features with higher number of entities are set to 1, and 0 for lower value.
2. Number of conjunctions
We observed the occurrence of 40 types of conjunctions. We measured the number of
conjunctions appear in both S1 and S2. The feature with higher number of entities is set to 1,
and 0 for lower value.
3. Lengths of sentences
We defined the length of Sj as follows:
∑=
i
ij wSLength )(
wherew is the word appearing in the corresponding text span.
4. Type of Speech
We determined the type of speech, whether the text span, S1 cites another sentence by
detecting the occurrence of quotation marks to identify Citation or Indirect Speech which
are the sub-category of Identity.

3.3. Rhetorical Relation-based Text Clustering
The aim of this work is to expand the benefits of rhetorical relations between sentences to cluster-
based text summarization. Rhetorical relation between sentences not only indicates how two
sentences are connected to each other, but also shows the similarity patterns in both sentences.
Therefore, by exploiting these characteristics, our idea is to construct similar text clustering based
on rhetorical relations among sentences. We consider that Identity, Subsumption, Elaboration and
Overlap relations are most appropriate for this task. These relations indicates either equivalence
or partial overlapping information between text spans, as shown in Table 1. Connections between
two sentences can be represented by multiple rhetorical relations. For instance, in some cases,
sentences defined as Subsumption can also be define as Identity. Applying the same process
against the same sentence pairs will be redundant. Therefore to reduce redundancy, we assigned
the strongest relation to represent each connection between 2 sentences according to the following
order:
(i) whether both sentences are identical or not
(ii) whether one sentence includes another
(iii) whether both sentences share partial information
(iv) whether both sentences share the same subject of topic
(v) whether one sentence discusses any entity mentioned in another
The priority of the discourse relations assignment can be concluded as follows:
Identity >Subsumption> Elaboration > Overlap
We then performed clustering algorithm to construct groups of similar sentences. The algorithm
is summarized as follows:
i) The strongest relations determined by SVMs is assigned to each connection (refer to
Figure 1(a)).
ii) Suppose each sentence is a centroid of its own cluster. Sentences connected to the
centroid as Identity (ID), Subsumption (SUB), Elaboration (ELA) and Overlap
(OVE) relations 1
is identified and sentences with these connections are evaluated as
having similar content, and aggregated as one cluster (refer Figure 1(b)).
iii) Similar clusters is removed by retrieving centroids connected as Identity, Subsumption or
Elaboration.
iv) Clusters from (iii) is merged to minimize the occurrence of the same sentences in multiple
clusters (refer Figure 1(c)).
v) Step (iii) and (iv) are iterated until the number of clusters is convergence
We performed 2 types of text clustering, which are:
i) RRCluster 1, which consist of Identity (ID), Subsumption (SUB), Elaboration (ELA)
and Overlap (OVE)
ii) RRCluster2, which consist of Identity (ID), Subsumption (SUB) and Elaboration (ELA)

The algorithm of similar text clustering is illustrated in Figure 1.
S1S3
S5
ELA
S6
ID
S7
ELA
GROUP A_B
…
…
…
…
S4
OVE
SUB
S2
S1S3 S4
S5
SUB
ELA
DES
OVE
S6
ID
S7
ELA
GROUP A
GROUP B
…
…
…
…
…
S2
S1S3 S4
S5
SUB
ELA
DES
OVE
…
…
…
…
…
S2
S1S3 S4
S5
SUB
ELA
DES
OVE
…
…
…
…
…
(a) (b)
(c)(d)
Figure 1. Rhetorical relation-based clustering algorithm
3.4. Cluster-based Summary Generation
We performed a cluster-based text summarization using clusters of similar text constructed by
exploiting rhetorical relations between sentences. We used Cluster-based Conditional Markov
Random Walk Model [36] to measure the saliency scores of candidates summary. Here we
defined the centroid as relevant candidate summary since each centroid represents the whole
cluster. The Conditional Markov Random Walk Model is based on the two-layer link graph
including both the sentences and the clusters. Therefore, the presentation of the two layer graph
are is denoted as SCSSCs EEVVG ,,,* =< . Suppose is vVV == is the set of sentences and
jc cCV == is the set of hidden nodes representing the detected theme clusters, where
siijSS VveEE ∈== | corresponds to all links between sentences
)(,,| ijcjsiijSC vcluscVcVveE =∈∈= corresponds to the correlation between a sentence and its
cluster. The score is computed measured as follows:
||
)1(~
)( *
,
V
MvSenScoreSenScore iij
ijall
j
µ
µ
−
+⋅⋅= ∑≠

µ is the damping factor set to 0.85, as defined in the PageRank algorithm. ijM ,
~
∗ refers to row-
normalized matrix ||||
*
,
*
, )
~
(
~
VVijij MM ×= to describe *~
G with each entry corresponding to the
transition probability, shown as follows:
))(),(|(
~ *
, iiiij vclusvclusjipM →=
Here, clus(vi) denotes the theme cluster containing sentence vi. The two factors are combined into
the transition probability from vi tovj defined as follows:
∑
∑
≠
→
→
=→
=
0,
))(),(|(
))(),(|(
))(),(|( ||
1
fif
vclusvcluskif
vclusvclusjif
vclusvclusjip V
k ki
ii
ii
))(),(|( ii vclusvclusjif → denotes the new affinity weight between two sentences vi and vj,
where both sentences belong to the corresponding two clusters. The conditional affinity weight is
computed by linearly combining the affinity weight conditioned on the source cluster,
i.e. ))(|( ivclusjif → and the affinity weight conditioned on the target cluster
i.e. ))(|( jvclusjif → , defined in the following equation.
))(|()1())(|(())(),(|( iiii vclusjifvclusjifvclusvclusjif →⋅−+→⋅=→ λλ
))(,())(()( iii vclusvvclusjif ωπλ ⋅⋅→⋅=
))(,())(()()1( jjj vclusvvclusjif ωπλ ⋅⋅→⋅−+
))(,())((()( iii vclusvvclusjif ωπλ ⋅⋅⋅→=
))(,())(()1( jjj vclusvvclus ωπλ ⋅⋅−+
Where ]1,0[∈λ is the combination of weight controlling the relative contributions from the
source cluster and the targetcluster1
. ]1,0[))(( ∈ivclusπ refers the importance of cluster )( ivclus
in the whole document set D and ]1,0[))(,( ∈ii vclusvω denotes the strength of the correlation
between sentence iv and its cluster )( ivclus . In this work, ))(( ivclusπ is set to the cosine
similarity value between the cluster and the whole document set, computed as follows:
)),(())(( cos Dvclussimvclus iinei =π
Meanwhile, ))(,( ii vclusvω is set to the cosine similarity value between the sentence and the
cluster where the sentence belongs, computed as follows:
))(,())(,( cos iiineii vclusvsimvclusv =π
The saliency scores for the sentences are iteratively computed until certain threshold, θ is
reached2
.

4. EXPERIMENT
4.1. Data
1
We set 5.0=λ for fair evaluation with methods adopted from (Wan and Yang, 2008)
2
In this study, the threshold, θ is set to 0.0001
CST-annotated sentences are obtained from Cross-document Structure Theory Bank (Radevet. al,
2004). Our system is evaluated using 2 data sets from Document Understanding Conference,
which are DUC'2001 and DUC'2002 [47].
4.2. Result and Discussion
4.2.1 Identification of Rhetorical Relations
The rhetorical relations assigned by SVMs are manually evaluated by 2 human judges. Since no
human annotation is available for DUC data sets, 5 times of random sampling consisting 100
sentence pairs is performed against each document set of DUC'2001 and DUC'2002).The human
judges performed manual annotation against sentence pairs, and assessed if SVMs assigned the
correct rhetorical relation to each pair. The correct rhetorical relation refers to either one of the
relations assigned by human judges in case of multiple relations exist between the two sentences.
As a baseline method, the most frequent relation in each set of sampling data is assigned to all
sentence pairs. We evaluated the classification of rhetorical relations by measuring the Precision,
Recall and F-measure score.
Table2 shows the macro average of Precision, Recall and F-measure for each data set. Identity
shows the most significant performance of Precision, where the value achieved more than 90% in
all data sets. Meanwhile, the Precision value for Citation and Description performed worse
compared to others in most data sets. Evaluation result shows that sentence pairs with quotation
marks mostly classified as Citation. As for Recall value, Identity, Subsumption, Elaboration and
Description yield more than 80%, meanwhile Change of Topic and No Relation performed the
worst with Recall of 60% in both data sets. We found that SVMs was unable to identify Change
of Topics, when multiple subjects (especially contained personal pronoun) occurred in a sentence.
According to F-Measure, SVMs performed well during the classification of Identity,Subsumption
and Elaboration with the Precision values achieved are above 70% for most data set. Overall,
compared to other relations, the Identity classification by SVMs performed the best in each
evaluation metric as expected. Sentence pair with Identity relation shows significant resemblance
in similarity value, grammatical relationship and number of entities. For instance, the similarity
between sentence pair is likely close to 1.0, and there are major overlap in subject and the object
of the sentences. Citation, Subsumption and Elaboration indicate promising potential of
automated classification using SVMs with F-measure achieved higher than 70%. We observed
that characteristics such as similarity between sentences, grammatical relationship and number of
entities are enough to determine the type of rhetorical relation of most data sets. Therefore, we
considered the ratio of rhetorical relations except for No Relations show a great potential for
automated classification with small number of annotated sentences.

Table 2. Evaluation result for identification of rhetorical relations
Relations
DUC’2001 DUC’2002
Precision Recall F-Measure Precision Recall F-Measure
Baseline 0.875 0.114 0.201 0.739 0.108 0.188
Identity 0.980 1.000 0.989 0.849 1.000 0.917
Citation 0.583 1.000 0.734 0.617 1.000 0.763
Subsumption 0.721 0.984 0.830 0.685 0.900 0.773
Elaboration 0.664 0.952 0.778 0.652 0.901 0.743
Overlap 0.875 0.532 0.653 0.739 0.556 0.633
Change of Topics 0.591 0.709 0.640 0.618 0.589 0.597
Description 0.841 0.947 0.886 0.817 0.856 0.826
No Relations 1.000 0.476 0.632 0.966 0.475 0.628
We found that the lack of significant surface characteristic is the main reason of misclassification
of relations such as Citation, Overlap, Change of Topics and Description. Therefore, we
conducted further analysis using confusion matrix [48] to determine the accuracy of classification
by SMVs. Confusion matrix compares the classification results by the system and actual class
defined by human, which useful to identify the nature of the classification errors. Table 3 and 4
describe the evaluation result of DUC'2001 and DUC'2002, respectively. The analysis is done
against each relation independently. Each table shows the classification nature of rhetorical
relations according to the number of sentences pair. We also included the accuracy and reliability
value of every relations. For instance, according to evaluation of DUC'2001 in Table 3, from 44
pairs of sentences with Identity relation, our system has been able to classify 43 pairs of them as
Identity correctly, while 1 pair misclassified as Subsumption. As a result, the Accuracy and
Reliability value achieved for Identity are 1.000 and 0.977, respectively.
Despite the errors discovered during the identification of rhetorical relations, the classification by
SVMs shows a promising potential especially forIdentity,Subsumption, Elaborationand No
Relation. In future, the increment of annotated sentences with significant characteristics of each
relation will improve the identification of rhetorical relation. For instance, in this experiment,
Overlap refers to sentences pair that shares partial information with each other. Therefore, we
used Bigram similarity and Longest Common Substring metric to measure the word sequences in
sentences. However, these metrics caused sentences with long named entity,e.g. ``President
George Bush'' and ``Los Angeles'', as having consecutive words which contributed to false
positive result of Overlap relation. The increment of annotated sentences consists of consecutive
common nouns and verbs will help to precisely define Overlap relation. Moreover, improvement
such as the usage of lexical database to extract lexical chain and anaphora resolution tool can be
used to extract more characteristics from each relation.
Table 3. Evaluation of Confusion Matrix for DUC’2001
Classification by System
Accuracy
ID CIT SUB ELA OVE CHT DES NOR
Actual
Class
ID 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000
CIT 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000
SUB 1 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0.984
ELA 0 0 2 48 0 0 1 0 0.941
OVE 0 20 3 12 57 3 2 0 0.533
CHT 0 0 5 6 6 51 3 0 0.718
DES 0 0 0 0 0 2 59 0 0.967
NOR 0 0 3 5 3 30 2 35 0.449
Reliability 0.977 0.574 0.726 0.676 0.864 0.593 0.881 1.000

Table 4. Evaluation of Confusion Matrix for DUC’2002
Classification by System
AccuracyID CIT SUB ELA OVE CHT DES NOR
Actual
Class
ID 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000
CIT 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000
SUB 6 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0.895
ELA 0 0 4 35 0 0 0 0 0.897
OVE 2 19 12 6 54 2 2 0 0.557
CHT 1 0 4 9 10 40 2 1 0.597
DES 0 0 0 0 0 8 70 0 0.886
NOR 0 0 3 6 10 13 7 36 0.480
Reliability 0.859 0.620 0.689 0.614 0.730 0.635 0.864 0.973
Table 5. Evaluation result for cohesion and separation of clusters
Data Set Evaluation
Clustering Method
K-Means
RRCluster1
(ID,SUB,ELA,OVE)
RRCluster2
(ID, SUB, ELA)
DUC’2001 Average SSE 7.271 4.599 4.181
Average SSB 209.111 397.237 308.153
Average SC 0.512 0.652 0.628
DUC’2002 Average SSE 6.991 3.927 3.624
Average SSB 154.511 257.118 214.762
Average SC 0.510 0.636 0.639
4.2.2 Rhetorical Relation-based Clustering
We evaluated our method by measuring the cohesion and separation of the constructed clusters.
The cluster cohesion refers to how closely the sentences are related within a cluster, measured
using Sum of Squared Errors (SSE) [49]. The smaller value of SSE indicates that the sentences in
clusters are closer to each other. Meanwhile, Sum of Squares Between (SSB) [49] is used to
measure cluster separation in order to examine how distinct or well-separated a cluster from
others. The high value of SSB indicates that the sentences are well separated with each other.
Cosine similarity measurement is used to measure the similarity between sentences in both SSE
and SSB evaluation. We also obtained the average of Silhouette Coefficient (SC) value to
measure the harmonic mean of both cohesion and separation of the clusters [49][50]. The value
range of the Silhouette Coefficient is between 0 and 1, where the value closer to 1 is the better.
Table 5 shows the evaluation results for cohesion and separation of the clusters. RRCluster1
refers to the clusters constructed by Identity, Subsumption and Elaboration, while RRCluster1
refers to the clusters constructed by Identity, Subsumption, Elaboration and Overlap. We also
used K-Means clustering for comparison [17]. K-means iteratively reassigns sentences to the
closest clusters until a convergence criterion is met. Table 5 indicates that RRCluster2, which
generates clusters of sentences with strong connections Identity, Subsumption and Elaboration,
demonstrates the best SSE value (4.181 for DUC'2001 and 3.624 for DUC'2002), which shows
the most significant cohesion within clusters. In contrast, RRCluster1which includes Overlap
during clustering indicates the most significant separation between clusters with the best SSB
value (397.237 for DUC'2001 and 257.118 for DUC'2002). RRCluster1 generated bigger
clusters, therefore resulted wider separation from other clusters. The average Silhouette
Coefficient shows that our method, RRCluster1 (0.652 for DUC'2001 and 0.636 for DUC'2002)
and RRCluster2 (0.628 for DUC'2001 and 0.639 for DUC'2002) outranked K-Means (0.512 for
DUC'2001 and 0.510 for DUC'2002) for both data sets.

Table 6. Evaluation result for pair-wise
Data Set Evaluation
Clustering Method
K-Means
RRCluster2
(ID, SUB, ELA)
RRCluster1
(ID,SUB,ELA,OVE)
DUC’2001 Precision 0.577 0.805 0.783
Recall 0.898 0.590 0.758
F-Measure 0.702 0.678 0.770
DUC’2002 Precision 0.603 0.750 0.779
Recall 0.885 0.533 0.752
F-Measure 0.716 0.623 0.766
In addition, we examined the clusters by performing a pair-wise evaluation. We sampled 5 sets of
data consisting 100 sentences pairs and evaluated if both sentences are actually belong to the
same clusters. Table 6 shows the macro average Precision, Recall and F-measure for pair-wise
evaluation. RRCluster2, which excludes Overlap relation during clustering, demonstrated a lower
Recall value compared toRRCluster1 and K-Means. However, the Precision score of
RRCluster2indicates better performance compared to K-Means. Overall, RRCluster1obtained the
best value for all measurement compared to RRCluster2and K-Means for both data sets. We
achieved optimum pair-wise results by including Overlap during clustering, where the F-measure
obtained for DUC'2001 and DUC'2002 are 0.770 and 0.766, respectively.
We made more detailed comparison between clusters constructed by K-Means and our method.
The example of the clustered sentences by each method from the experiment is shown in Table 7.
K-Means is a lexical based clustering method, where sentences with similar lexical often be
clustered as one group although the content semantically different. The 5th
sentences from K-
Means cluster in Table 7demonstrates this error. Meanwhile, our system, RRCluster1and
RRCluster2performed more strict method where not only lexical similarity, but also syntactic
similary, i.e the overlap of grammatical relationship is taken into account during clustering.
According to Table 5, Table 6 and Table7, the connection between sentences can allow text
clustering according to the user preference. For instance, RRCluster2performed small group of
similar sentences with strong cohesion in a cluster. In contrast, RRCluster1method performed
clustering of sentences with Identity, Subsumption, Elaboration and Overlap, which are less strict
than RRCluster2, however presents strong separation between clusters. In other words, the
overlapping information between clusters are lower compared to RRCluster2. Thus, the
experimental results demonstrate that the utilization of rhetorical relations can be another
alternative of cluster construction other than only observing word distribution in corpus.
4.2.3 Cluster-based Summary Generation
We generated short summaries of 100 words for DUC'2001 and DUC'2002 to evaluate the
performance of our clustering method, and to observe if rhetorical relation-based clustering
benefits the multi-document text summarization. The experimental results also include the
evaluation of summaries based on clusters generated by Agglomerative Clustering, Divisive
Clustering and K-Means as comparison, adopted from [36]. The ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-2 score
of clustering method shown in Table 8.

Table 7. Comparison of sentences from K-Means and proposed methods clusters
K-Means
√ Centroid
Tropical Storm Gilbert formed in the eastern Caribbean and strengthened into a hurricane
Saturday night.
√ 1
Earlier Wednesday Gilbert was classified as a Category 5 storm, the strongest and deadliest
type of hurricane.
√ 2
Such storms have maximum sustained winds greater than 155 mph and can cause
catastrophic damage.
√ 3
As Gilbert moved away from the Yucatan Peninsula Wednesday night , the hurricane formed
a double eye, two concentric circles of thunderstorms often characteristic of a strong storm
that has crossed land and is moving over the water again.
√ 4
Only two Category 5 hurricanes have hit the United States the 1935 storm that killed 408
people in Florida and Hurricane Camille that devastated the Mississippi coast in 1969,
killing 256 people.
x 5
“Any time you contract an air mass , they will start spinning . That's what makes the
tornadoes , hurricanes and blizzards , those winter storms”,Bleck said.
RRCluster2
√ Centroid
Saturday night.
√ 1
On Saturday , Hurricane Florence was downgraded to a tropical storm and its remnants
pushed inland from the U.S. Gulf Coast.
√ 2
The storm ripped the roofs off houses and flooded coastal areas of southwestern Puerto
Rico after reaching hurricane strength off the island's southeast Saturday night.
√ 3 It reached tropical storm status by Saturday and a hurricane Sunday.
√ 4
Saturday night.
RRCluster1
√ Centroid
Saturday night.
√ 1
On Saturday, Hurricane Florence was downgraded to a tropical storm and its remnants
pushed inland from the U.S. Gulf Coast.
√ 2
The storm ripped the roofs off houses and flooded coastal areas of southwestern Puerto
Rico after reaching hurricane strength off the island's southeast Saturday night.
√ 3
Hurricane Gilbert, one of the strongest storms ever, slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula
Wednesday and leveled thatched homes, tore off roofs , uprooted trees and cut off the
Caribbean resorts of Cancun and Cozumel.
√ 4 It reached tropical storm status by Saturday and a hurricane Sunday.
√ 5
Saturday night.
Table 8. Comparison of ROUGE score for DUC’2001 and DUC’2002
Method DUC’2001 DUC’2002
ROUGE-1 ROUGE-2 ROUGE-1 ROUGE-2
Agglomerative 0.3571 0.0655 0.3854 0.0865
Divisive 0.3555 0.0607 0.3799 0.0839
K-Means 0.3582 0.0646 0.3822 0.0832
RRCluster2 0.3359 0.0650 0.3591 0.0753
RRCluster1 0.3602 0.0736 0.3693 0.0873
For DUC'2001 data set, our RRCluster1performed significantly well for ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-
2 score, where we outperformed others with highest score of 0.3602 and 0.0736, respectively.
Divisive performed the worst compared to other methods. As for DUC'2002 data set,
Agglomerative obtained the best score of ROUGE-1 with 0.3854, while RRCluster2yield the
lowest score of 0.3591. In contrast, RRCluster1gained the best score of ROUGE-2 with 0.0873.

We observed that our proposed RRCluster1performed significantly well with ROUGE-2. During
the classification of rhetorical relations, we also considered word sequence of Bigram to
determine rhetorical relations, therefore resulted a high score of ROUGE-2. However, the
ROUGE-1 score of our proposed methods performed poorly for DUC'2002 data sets, especially
for RRCluster2. This technique, which considers Identity, Subsumption and Elaboration during
text clustering certainly constructed clusters with high cohesion, but also limits the clustering to
sentences with only strong connections. This led to the construction of many small clusters with
possibility of partial overlaps of information with other clusters. As a result, the structure of
clusters in RRCluster2caused the low value of both ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-2 scores.
Although our method only achieved good ROUGE-2 score, we considered that rhetorical relation-
based clustering shows a great potential since that our clustering method is at initial stage yet
already outperformed some of the well-established clustering method. Clearly, rhetorical relation-
based cluster need some further improvement in future in order to produce better result. However,
the result we obtained from this experiment shows that rhetorical relation-based clustering can
enhance the cluster-based summary generation.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigated the relevance and benefits of the rhetorical relation for summary
generation. We proposed the application of rhetorical relations exist between sentences to
improve extractive summarization for multiple documents, which focused on the extraction of
salient sentences and redundancy elimination. We first examined the rhetorical relations from
Cross-document Theory Structure (CST), then selected and redefined the relations that benefits
text summarization. We extracted surfaces features from annotated sentences obtained from CST
Bank and performed identification of 8 types of rhetorical relations using SVMs. Then we further
our work on rhetorical relations by exploiting the benefit of rhetorical relation to similar text
clustering. The evaluation results showed that the rhetorical relation-based method has promising
potential as a novel approach for text clustering. Next, we extended our work to cluster-based text
summarization. We used ranking algorithm that take into account the cluster-level information,
Cluster-based Conditional Markov Random Walk (Cluster-based CMRW) to measure the
saliency score of sentences. For DUC'2001, our proposed method, RRCluster1performed
significantly well for ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-2 score with highest score of 0.3602 and 0.0736,
respectively. Meanwhile, RRCluster1gained the best score of ROUGE-2 with 0.0873 for
DUC'2002. This work has proved our theory that rhetorical relations can benefit the similar text
clustering. With further improvement, the quality of summary generation can be enhanced. From
the evaluation results, we concluded that the rhetorical relations are effective to improve the
ranking of salient sentences and the elimination of redundant sentences. Furthermore, our system
does not rely on fully annotated corpus and does not require deep linguistic knowledge.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is supported by many individuals from multiple organization of University of
Yamanashi, Japan and University of Perlis, Malaysia.
REFERENCES
[1] Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A., ``Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a Functional Theory of
Text Organization'', Text, 8(3), pp.243-281, 1988.
[2] Carlson, L., Marcu, D. and Okurowski, M.E., ``RST Discourse Treebank'', Linguistic Data
Consortium 1-58563-223-6, 2002.

[3] Webber, B.L., Knott, A., Stone, M. and Joshi, A., `Ànaphora and Discourse Structure'',
Computational Linguistics 29 (4), pp. 545–588, 2003.
[4] Radev, D.R., `À Common Theory of Information Fusion from Multiple Text Source Step One:
Cross-Document'', In Proc. of 1st ACL SIGDIAL Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Hong Kong,
2000.
[5] Radev, D.R., Otterbacher, J. and Zhang, Z., CSTBank: Cross-document Structure Theory Bank,
http://tangra.si.umich.edu/clair/CSTBank/phase1.htm, 2003.
[6] Wolf, F., Gibson, E., Fisher, A. and Knight, M.,``DiscourseGraphbank'', Linguistic Data Consortium,
Philadelphia, 2005.
[7] Marcu, D., ``From Discourse Structures to Text Summaries'', In Proc. of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (ACL) on Intelligent Scalable Text Summarization, pp. 82-88, 1997.
[8] Zhang, Z., Blair-Goldensohn, S. and Radev, D.R., ``Towards CST-enhanced Summarization'', In
Proc. of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , 2002.
[9] Radev, D.R., Jing, H., Stys, M., Tam, D., ``Centroid-based Summarization of Multiple Documents'',
Information Processing and Management 40, pp. 919–938, 2004.
[10] Uzeda, V.R., Pardo, T.A.S., Nunes, M.G.V.,''A Comprehensive Summary Informativeness Evaluation
for RST-based Summarization Methods'', International Journal of Computer Information Systems and
Industrial Management Applications (IJCISIM) ISSN: 2150-7988 Vol.1, pp.188-196, 2009.
[11] Jorge, M.L.C and Pardo, T.S., `Èxperiments with CST-based Multi-document Summarization'',
Workshop on Graph-based Methods for Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational
Linguistics (ACL), pp. 74-82, 2010.
[12] Louis, A., Joshi, A., and Nenkova, A., ``Discourse Indicators for Content Selection in
Summarization'', In Proc. of 11th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and
Dialogue (SIGDIAL), pp. 147-156, 2010.
[13] Litkowski, K., ``CL Research Experiments in TREC-10 Question Answering'', The10th Text
Retrieval Conference (TREC 2001). NIST Special Publication, pp. 200-250, 2002.
[14] Verberne, S., Boves, L., and Oostdijk, N., ``Discourse-based Answering of Why-Questions'',
TraitementAutomatique des Langues, special issue on Computational Approaches to Discourse and
Document Processing, pp. 21-41, 2007.
[15] Theune, M., ``Contrast in Concept-to-speech Generation'', Computer Speech and Language,16(3-4),
ISSN 0885-2308, pp. 491-530, 2002.
[16] Piwek, P. and Stoyanchev, S., `` Generating Expository Dialogue from Monologue Motivation,
Corpus and Preliminary Rules'', In Proc. of 11th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter
of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), 2010.
[17] McQueen, J., ``Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations'', In Proc.
of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, pp. 281–297, 1967.
[18]Dunn, J.C., `À Fuzzy Relative of the ISODATA Process and its Use in Detecting Compact Well-
Separated Clusters'', Journal of Cybernetics, pp. 32-57, 1973.
[19] Johnson, S.C., ``Hierarchical Clustering Schemes'', Psychometrika, pp. 241-254, 1967.
[20] D'andrade, R.,`Ù-Statistic Hierarchical Clustering'',Psychometrika, pp.58-67, 1978.
[21] Ng, A. Y., Jordan,M. I., and Weiss, Y., `Òn Spectral Clustering: Analysis and an Algorithm'', In
Proc. of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 14), 2002.
[22] Hartigan, J. A., Wong, M. A.,`Àlgorithm AS 136: A K-Means Clustering Algorithm'', Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics) 28 (1), pp. 100–108, 1979.
[23] Hamerly, G. and Elkan, C. ,`Àlternatives to the K-means Algorithm that Find Better Clusterings'', In
Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM),
2002.
[24] Bezdek, J.C., ``Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algoritms'', Plenum Press, New
York, 1981.
[25] McKeown,K., Klavans,J., Hatzivassiloglou,V., Barzilay,R. and Eskin, E., `` Towards Multi-document
Summarization by Reformulation: Progress and prospects'', In Proc. of the 16th National Conference
of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 453-460, 1999.
[26] Marcu,D., and Gerber, L.,`` An Inquiry into the Nature of Multidocument Abstracts, Extracts, and
their Evaluation'', In Proc. of Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association
for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), Workshop on Automatic Summarization, pp. 1-8, 2001.
[27] Hardy,H., Shimizu,N., Strzalkowski,T., Ting,L., Wise,G.B., and Zhang,X.,`` Cross-document
Summarization by Concept Classification'', In Proc. of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR
Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 121-128, 2002.

[28]Radev, D.R., Jing,H., and Budzikowska, M., ``Centroid-based Summarization of Multiple Documents:
Sentence extraction, Utility-based Evaluation, and User Studies'', In ANLP/NAACL Workshop on
Summarization, 2000.
[29] Carbonell,J.G. and Goldstein, J., `` The Use of MMR, Diversity-based Re-ranking for Reordering
Documents and Producing Summaries,'' In Proc. of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR
Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 335-336, 1998.
[30] Stein, G.C., Bagga, A. and Wise,G.B.,`` Multi-Document Summarization: Methodologies and
Evaluations'', In Conference TALN, 2000.
[31] Hatzivassiloglou,V., Klavans,J., and Eskin, E.,`` Detecting Test Similarity Over Short Passages:
Exploring Linguistic Feature Combinations via Machine Learning'', In Proc. of Conference on
Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP),1999.
[32]Hatzivassiloglou,V., Klavans,J., Holcombe,M.L., Barzilay,R., Kan,M-Y., and McKeown, K.R.,``
SimFinder: A Flexible Clustering Tool for Summarization'', In Proc. of Annual Conference of the
North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), Workshop on
Automatic Summarization, 2001.
[33] Cohen, W., `` Learning Trees and Rules with Set-valued Features'', In Proc. of the 14th National
Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 1996.
[34] Barzilay,R., Elhadad,N., and McKeown, R.K., ``Sentence Ordering in Multi-document
Summarization'', In Proc. of the Human Language Technology Sarkar, K., ``Sentence Clustering-
based Summarization of Multiple Text Documents'', TECHNIA - International Journal of Computing
Science and Communication Technologies, VOL. 2, NO. 1, (ISSN 0974-3375), pp. 325-335,2009.
[35] Sarkar, K., ``Sentence Clustering-based Summarization of Multiple Text Documents'', TECHNIA -
International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, VOL. 2, NO. 1,
(ISSN 0974-3375), pp. 325-335,2009.
[36] Wan, X. and Yang, J., ``Multi-Document Summarization Using Cluster-Based Link Analysis'' , In
Proc. of the 31st Annual International Conference on Research and Development in Information
Retrieval (ACM SIGIR) Conference, pp. 299-306, 2008.
[37] Erkanand, G.andRadev,D.R., ``LexPageRank:Graph-based Lexical Centrality as Salience in Text
Summarization'', Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 22, pp.457-479, 2004.
[38] Mihalcea, R., and Tarau. P.,`` A language Independent Algorithm for Single and Multiple Document
Summarization'', In Proc. of International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing
(IJCNLP), 2005.
[39] Wan, X. and Yang. J.,`` Improved Affinity Graph based Multi-document Summarization'', In Proc. of
Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:
Human Language Technologies (HLT-NAACL), 2006.
[40] Otterbacher, J., Radev, D. and Luo, A.,``Revisions that Improve Cohesion in Multidocument
Summaries: A Preliminary Study'',In Proc. of Conference on Association of Computer Linguistics
(ACL), Workshop on Automatic Summarization, pp. 27-36,2002.
[41] Teufel, S. and Moens, M.,``Summarizing Scientific Articles: Experiments with Relevance and
Rhetorical Structure'', Computational Linguistics 28(4): 409-445, 2002.
[42] Pardo, T.A.S. and Machado Rino, L.H., ``DMSumm: Review and Assessment'', In Proc. of Advances
in Natural Language Processing, 3rd International Conference (PorTAL 2002), pp. 263-274,2002.
[43] Nik Adilah Hanin BintiZahri, Fumiyo Fukumoto, SuguruMatsuyoshi, ''Exploiting Discourse Relations
between Sentences for Text Clustering'', In Proc. of 24th International Conference on Computational
Linguistics (COLING 2012), Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects
(ADACA) Workshop, pp. 17-31, December 2012, Mumbai, India.
[44] Vapnik, V. : The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, Springer, 1995.
[45] Lin, D., ``PRINCIPAR- An Efficient, Broad-coverage, Principle-based Parser'', In Proc. of 15th
International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pp.482-488, 1994.
[46] Finkel, J.R., Grenager, T. and Manning, C., ``Incorporating Non-local Information into Information
Extraction Systems by Gibbs Sampling'', In Proc. of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 363-370, 2005.
[47] Buckland,L. & Dang, H.,Document Understanding Conference Website, http://duc.nist.gov/
[48] Kohavi, R. and Provost, F.,``Glossary of Terms'', Machine Learning 30, No.2-3, pp. 271-274, 1998.
[49] IBM SPSS Statistic Database, ``Cluster Evaluation Algorithm'' http://publib.boulder.ibm.com , 2011.
[50] Kaufman, L. and Rousseeuw, P., ``Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis'',
John Wiley and Sons, London. ISBN: 10: 0471878766, 1990

AUTHORS
N. Adilah Hanin Zahri graduated from Computer Science and Media Engineering,
University of Yamanashi in 2006. She received MSc in 2009 and PhD in Human
Environmental Medical Engineering in 2013 from Interdisciplinary Graduate School of
Medicine and Engineering, University of Yamanashi, Japan. Currently, she is working at
Department of Computer Engineering, School of Computer and Communication
Engineering in University of Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia.
Fumiyo Fukumoto graduated from Department of Mathematics in the faculty of Sciences,
Gakushuin University, 1986. From 1986 to 1988, she joined R&D Department of Oki
Electric Industry Co., Ltd. From 1988 to 1992, she joined Institute for New Generation
Computer Technology (ICOT). She was at Centre for Computational Linguistics of
UMIST (University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology), England as a
student and a visiting researcher, from 1992 to 1994, and awarded MSc. Since 1994, she
has been working at University of Yamanashi, Japan. She is a member of ANLP, ACL,
ACM, IPSJ and IEICE.
Suguru Matsuyoshi received the B.S. degree from Kyoto University in 2003, and the
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in informatics from Kyoto University, Japan, in 2005 and 2008,
respectively. Prior to 2011, he was a Research Assistant Professor in Graduate School of
Information Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, Japan. Since
2011, he has been an Assistant Professor in Interdisciplinary Graduate School of
Medicine and Engineering, University of Yamanashi, Japan.
Ong Bi Lynn graduated with B. Eng. (Hons) Electrical and Electronics from Universiti
Malaysia Sabah (UMS) in the year 2001. She received her Master of Business
Administration from Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) in 2003. She obtained her Ph.D.
in the field of Computer Network in the year 2008 from Universiti Utara Malaysia
(UUM). Currently, she is working with Department of Computer Network Engineering,
School of Computer and Communication Engineering in Universiti of Malaysia Perlis
(UniMAP), Perlis, Malaysia.

Application of rhetorical

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Application of rhetorical (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Application of rhetorical