Automatic Text Summarization: A Critical Review

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 02 | Feb 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1112
Automatic Text Summarization: A Critical Review
Harsh Hardel,1 Jay Sharma,1 Chirag Sahuji,1 Dr. Rajesh R Prasad1
1Department of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Engineering, MIT Art, Design and Technology University,
Pune, Maharashtra, India- 412201
------------------------------------------------------------------------***-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Amount of data on internet is increasing day by
day. So it becomes more difficult to retrieve important points
from large documents without reading the whole document.
Manually extracting key components from large documents
requires lot of time and energy .Therefore a automatic
summarizer is must needed which will produce the summary
of document on its own. In this a text is given to the computer
and the computer using algorithms produces a summary of
text as output. In this paper we have discussed our attempt to
prepare an extraction based automatic text summarizer in
which paragraphs of documents are split in sentences and then
these sentences are ranked on the basis of some features of
summarization where higher rank sentences are found to be
important one which are used to generate the summary.
1. INTRODUCTION
World of text is vast and evolving constantly. Most
information available on the internet is still in a text format.
We humans as the frequent user of this vast information
have to go through large and many different documents to
gain that information which takes lots of our time as well as
energy .Due to this massive increase in text information a
Text summarization is must needed to extract the Important
points from large set of information or documents. Text
Summarization is process of producing a concise summary
while maintaining important information and overall
meaning of text. We can divide Text summarization into two
categories:-
1.1 Abstractive Summarization:-
In this method summary involves the words which are
generally not present in actual text it means that it produces
summary in a new way by selecting words on semantic
analysis just like how humans read articles and then writes
the summary of it in their own words.
1.2 Extractive Summarization:-
In this the most important parts of sentences are selected
from text and summary is generated from it.
Text Summarization is a one of use cases of Natural
Language Processing (NLP).So what is NLP? Natural
Language Processing is the branch of Artificial Intelligence
concerned with making computers understand text and
words in same way as human beings can understand it .Some
of Applications of NLP are:-
• Spam Detection
• Machine translation
• Chatbots
• Sentiment Analysis
• Text Summarization
During our process of generating text summarization there
comes an important step know as feature extraction which is
basically extracting the features of summarization to score
the sentences. Following are some features of text
summarization:-
Sentence Length - This feature is used to prevent too
short or too long sentences from appearing in the summary.
basically it is ratio of words in sentence divided by amount of
words coming in largest sentences.
Sentence Position- It tells the position of each sentence in
the document and also signifies that each sentence has
different importance.
Term Frequency- It refers to how many times a term
appears in a document..
Title Similarity- Title always gives the clues of text
content. If sentence has high degree of intersection with title
words then this feature has higher score and more
probability to be part of summary.
Sentence Similarity- It tells how much one sentence is
similar to another one.
Upper-Case Feature- It assigns higher score to words
containing more than one uppercase letters, mainly proper
nouns.

Cue phrases- Phrases such as “the most important”,
“according to survey/study”, “in conclusion/summary”
indicate significant content of text.
It is very important to understand the intuition of words at
different positions as well as to know the similarity between
those words, so to solve these linguistic problems in NLP a
library is called WordNet. WordNet is a basically a lexical
database which tells the semantic relations between words
in more than 200 languages. It contains adjectives, nouns,
adverbs, verbs grouped together into coherent synonyms
where each word has different concept. It is easily available
online to download. WordNet differs from thesaurus as
thesaurus link words by their meaning but wordnet
interlinks sense of words. Wordnet library is also present in
NLTK library of python.
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
There has been a lot of development in the field of Text
Summarizing in the past 9 years. With every advancement
comes a new techniques with more optimized approach.
Some of these techniques are mentioned below -
A. Abstractive Text Summarization Approaches with
Analysis of Evaluation Techniques [1]
Aim is to summarize large documents to extract the key
components from the text which makes it very convenient to
understand the context and main points of the text. This
paper was published in the year 2021 and the author was
Abdullah Khilji.
The approach described in the paper uses a baseline
machine learning model for summarizing long text. This
model takes raw text as input and gives predicted summary
as output. They experiment with both abstractive and
extractive based text summarization techniques. For
verifying the model they use BELU, ROGUE and a textual
entailment method.
Dataset being used is Amazon fine foods reviews which
consist of half a million reviews collected over a period of 10
years. The methodology being used is Sequence to Sequence
and Generative Adversial. However the paper is missing
details of extractive summarization techniques.
B. A Comprehensive Survey on Text Summarization
Systems [2]
This paper describes about the classification of
summarization techniques and also about the criteria that
are important for the system to generate the summary. This
paper was published in 2009 and the author was Saeedeh
Gholamrezazadeh.
Extractive approach is described as reusing the portions of
the main text which is italics, bold phrases, first line of each
paragraph, special names, etc. For Abstractive approach
involves rewriting the original text in a short version by
replacing large words with their short alternatives.
Drawbacks of Extractive summarization includes
inconsistencies, lack of balance and lack of cohesion.
Examples of extractive summarization are Summ-It applet
and examples of abstractive summarization are SUMMARIST.
C. Extractive Automatic Text Summarization Based on
Lexical-Semantic Keywords [3]
This paper focuses on Automatic Text Summarization to
get the condensed version of the text. The method mentioned
also takes into account the title of the paper, the words
mentioned in it and how they are relevant to the document.
However the summary might not include all the topics
mentioned in the input text. This paper was published in the
year 2016 by Angel´ Hern´andezCastan˜eda.
Proposed approach firstly passes text to feature generation
methods like D2V, LDA, etc. to generate vectors for each
sentence. Then it undergoes clustering which measures the
proximity among different vectors generated in the previous
step. Then LDA is used to get main sentences above the rest
all sentences which are then used to generate the summary.
This paper explains the whole process in a very precise
manner however there is less information on the methods
being used in some steps of the proposed flow. No info on
term frequency and inverse term frequency is present in the
paper.
D. Abstractive Text Summarization based on Improved
Semantic Graph Approach [4]
This paper talks about graph based method for
summarizing text. It also tells about how graph based
method can be used to implement abstractive as well as
extractive text summarization. This paper was published in
the year 2018 and is authored by Atif Khan.
According to almost all graph based method text is
considered as a bag of words and for summarization it uses
content similarity measure but it might fail to detect
semantically equivalent redundant sentences. The proposed
system has two parts one for making the semantic graph and
other part for improving the ranking algorithm based on the

weighted graph. Finally after both parts are executed
successfully, abstractive summary of the text is generated.
The paper has good information on graph based ranking
algorithm and improved versions of it. However there is no
mention of textrank algorithm. Also a comparison between
graph based ranking algorithm and textrank ranking
algorithm is absent.
E. Text Summarizer Using Abstractive and
Extractive Method [5]
In this paper the main motivation is to make computers
understand the documents with any extension and how to
make it generate the summary. In this method the system
uses a combination of both statistical and linguistic analysis.
This paper was published in the year 2014 and is authored
by Ms. Anusha Pai.
The system introduced in the paper takes text input from
user. For summarizing this input it firstly separates the
phases, then removes the stop words from the input. After
this it performs Statistical and Linguistic analysis to generate
the summary. This output is then sent and stored in the
database.
The system proposed generates summary according to the
input given by the user. This can further be improved by
adding synonyms resolution to the model which will treat
synonyms words as same. Also multiple documents
summarization support can be added.
F. Evolutionary Algorithm for Extractive Text
Summarization [6]
In this paper a new possibility is introduced, abstractive
text summarization might compose of novel sentences, which
are not present in the original document. The method
introduced uses unsupervised document summarization
method which uses clustering and extracting to generate
summary of the text in the main document. This paper was
published in 2009 by Rasim Alguliev.
This method uses Sentence clustering to classify sentences
based on similarity measures which classifies the sentences
in clusters. After this objective function is used to calculate
their importance. Along with this Modified Discrete
Differential Evolution Algorithm is also mentioned in the
paper.
No information is given about Graph based approach and
also no comparison between graph based approach and
objective function is given. Also the result is less optimized
than approaches we saw in other papers.
G. Automatic Keyword Extraction for Text
Summarization: A Survey [7]
This paper talks about currently present approaches for
summarization. It also talks about Extractive and Abstractive
text summarization. This paper was published in the year
2017 and is authored by Santosh Kumar Bharti.
This paper has divided Automatic Text Summarization in 4
types Simple Statistics, Linguistic, Machine Learning and
Hybrid. These are techniques in which we can implement
Automatic Text Summarization. In Simple Statistics we have
Inverse Document Frequency, Relative Frequency Ratio,
Term Frequency, etc. In Linguistic Approach we have
Electronic Dictionary, Tree Tagger, n-Grams, WordNet, etc. In
Machine Learning we have SVM, Bagging, HMM, etc. Hybrid is
the combination of the previous three mentioned.
This paper contains of all the techniques present till the
date however since 2017 there has been a lot of
improvement in this field. This paper needs to be updated
with the latest technologies.
H. Automatic Keyword Extraction for Text
Summarization in Multi-document e-Newspapers
Articles [8]
by Santosh Kumar Bharti. It takes about implementing
Extractive Summarization in everyday life for summarizing
e-Newspaper articles.
This paper mainly focuses on Extractive Summarization. It
parses the article and scans for keywords relevant to the title
of the Newspaper. Then we use NLP to look for the keywords
which have the most weightage, along with this we avoid the
stop words which would be present a lot in the article.
Summary produced is usually around 17 percent of the
whole article.
This paper shows the comparison between TF-IDF, TF-
AIDF, NFA and Proposed methods. It uses Fmeasure as a
parameter to measure efficiencies of the techniques. It can be
clearly seen that the proposed method is more efficient than
the other three methods.
The paper only mentioned model implementation on
Newspaper articles and not on any other type of articles. Also
only Extractive Summarization is used for this model. This

model should be tested on different articles and also using
different methodologies.
I. Graph-based keyword extraction for single-
document summarization [9]
This paper focuses on approach used for selecting
keywords from the text input given by the user. The
comparison is done between supervised and unsupervised
approach to identify keywords. This paper was published in
the year 2008 by the writer Marina Litvak.
This approach takes into account some structured
document features using graph-based syntactic
representation of the text and web documents which
improves the traditional vector space model. For the
supervised approach, a summarized collection of documents
is used to train the classification algorithm which induces a
keyword identification model. Similarly for unsupervised
approach, HITS algorithm is used on the document graphs.
This is done under the assumption that the top-ranked nodes
are representing the document keywords.
Supervised Classification model provides the best keyword
identification accuracy. But a simple degree-based ranking
reaches the highest F-measure. Also only first iteration of
HITS is enough instead of running it till we get convergence,
J. Extractive approach for text summarization using
graphs [10]
This paper implements Extractive approach but using a
different approach. It uses two matrices sentence overlap
and edit distance to measure sentence similarity.
This paper was published in the year 2021 by the author
Kastriot Kadriu.
The proposed model takes document as input. The
document is then tokenized after which lemmatization is
performed and is checked for dependency parsing. Then the
model checks for sentence overlap and edits distance if
necessary. After this graph representation is done. Now we
can apply different algorithms to generate summary of the
text.
In the paper author has taken into account different
methods for generating the summary. This includes
pagerank, hits, closeness, betweenness, degree and clusters.
Finally the summary is generated. The paper also shows a
comparison between different methods and how accurate
their summary is. We use F-score to measure their
effectiveness.
K. Implementation and Evaluation of Evolutionary
Connectionist Approaches to Automated Text
Summarization [11]
This paper implemented and compared the performance of
three text summarization developed using existing
summarization systems to achieve the connectionism. This
paper was published in 2010 by the authors Rajesh
Shardanand Prasad and Uday Kulkarni.
Three approaches used in paper are based on semantic
nets, fuzzy logic and evolutionary programming respectively.
Results they got where that the first approach performs
better than MS word, second approach was resulting in an
efficient system and third approach showed most promising
results in case of precision and F-measure. The paper has
used the DUC 2002 dataset to evaluate summarized results
based on precision and F-measure.
Approaches used in this paper focus only on small details
related to general summarization rather than developing an
entire summarization system thus are only helpful in
research purposes.
L. Feature Based Text Summarization [12]
This paper aims at creating a feature based text
summarizer which are applied for different size of
documents. This paper was published in the year 2012 by
authors Dr. Rajesh Prasad.
This paper follows the extractive way of summarizing the
text and utilizes the combination of nine features to calculate
the feature scores of each sentences and rank them
according to scores they get. The higher rank sentences are
part of final summary of text. They have used different types
of documents which requires different features to get
summary as a dataset for their model. This approach gave
better results when compared to MS word in terms of
precision, Recall and F-measure in most type of documents.
This paper shows great results for different types of
documents but some documents may require features more
than this paper has used so further research is needed in this
approach.
M. Review of Proposed Architectures for Automated
Text Summarization [13]
This paper aims to review various architectures which has
been proposed for automatic text summarization. This paper
was published in the year 2013 by its authors Tejas
Yedke,Vishal Jain and Dr.Rajesh Prasad.

In this paper different techniques for text summarization
are discussed and their advantages and drawbacks are also
reviewed. DUC 2002 dataset is used to calculate results that
which approach performs better for which type of document
in terms of precision, Recall and Fmeasure. The limitation of
this paper is that it doesn’t provide the most effective
technique for summarization.
N. Automatic Extractive Text Summarizer(AETS):
Using Genetic Algorithm [14]
This paper aims at developing a extractive text
summmarizer using Genetic algorithm. This paper was
published in the year 2017 by its authors Alok
Rai,Yashashree Patil,Pooja Sulakhe,Gaurav Lal,and Dr.Rajesh
Prasad.
The approach this paper follows involves the feature
extraction, fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm to train machine
to produce better results in automatic summarization. This
paper defines Genetic algorithms as the search strategies
which cop with the population of simultaneous seek
positions. According to input file and compression rate given
by user the authors resulted in forming a meaningful
summary as output text. According to paper genetic
algorithm is sentence-choice based techniques and gives best
results when text summarization is done.
O. A Novel Evolutionary Connectionist Text
Summarizer (ECTS) [15]
This paper aims to create a efficient tool that can
summarize large documents easily using evolving
connectionist approach.This paper was published in the year
2009 by Rajesh S.Prasad,Dr. U.V Kulkarni,and Jayashree
R.Prasad.
In this paper a novel approach is proposed for part of
speech disambiguation using a recurrent neural network,
which deals with sequential data. Fifty random different
articles where used as dataset for in this paper. Authors
found the accuracy of ECTS was ranging from 95 to 100
percent which average accuracy of 94 percent when
compared to other summarizers.
Though this paper has explained connectionist approach
very well but their lies some issues in POS disambiguation
and deviations is found in ECTS for couple of sentences.
P. Abstractive method of text summarization with
sequence to sequence RNNs [16]
by Abu Kaisar Mohammad Masum. It takes about how bi-
directional RNN and LSTM can be used in encoding layer
along with attention model in decoding layer for performing
abstractive text summarization on amazon fine food review
dataset.
This focus of this paper is Abstractive Summarization by
the use of sequence to sequence RNNs. It performs Data
Processing in which we Split Text, Add Contractions, Remove
stop words and perform Lemmarization. After verifying if the
text is purified, we count the size of vocabulary and add word
embedding file.
Next step is the addition of special tokens which mark
important waypoints in the dataset. After this an Encoder
layer and Decoder Layer is present in LSTM and then the
Sequence to Sequence model is built.
The above model is then trained with data for generating
the response summary. Even though above model performs
well for short text it suffers when long text input is given.
Other drawback is that it is currently trained for English
language but no such summarizer is available for other
languages.
Q. Automatic Text Summarization Using Local Scoring
and Ranking [17]
by Diksha Kumar. Instead of building a text summarizer this
paper focuses on improving the currently available
Automatic Text Summarizer to achieve more coherent and
meaningful summaries.
The model introduced in the paper uses automatic feature
based extractive text summarizer to better understand the
document and improve the coherence. The summary of the
given input is generated on the basis of local scoring and
local ranking. We can select the top n sentences in the
ranking for the summary. Here n depends on the
compression ratio of the summarizer.
Feature Extraction can be done on the basis of different
criteria. It can be done the basis of frequency of a word
appearing in a sentence by selecting the words occurring the
most, on the basis of the length of the sentence by avoiding
too short or too long sentences, on the basis of the position of
the sentence by giving high score to first sentence and less to
second sentence and so on, on the basis of sentences
overlapping the title or heading which can be considered
important and on the basis of similarity of a sentence with
respect to all other sentences in the document.

R. A Genetic Fuzzy Automatic Text Summarizer [18]
by Daniel Leite. This paper focuses on fuzzy based ranking
system to select the sentences for performing extractive
summarization on the input dataset.
The fuzzy knowledge base used in this model was
generated by a genetic algorithm. For fitness function ROGUE
informativeness measures were adopted and a corpus of
newswire text is being used along with their human
generated summaries for defining the fuzzy classification
rules.
The paper also talks about SuPor-2 features which uses
Na¨ıve-Bayes probabilistic classifier to find the relevance of a
sentence to be extracted from the dataset to be in the
generated summary. It has 11 features that address either
the surface or the linguistic factors that interact with one
another to find the relevance of a sentence. For future scope
the paper talks about using ideal mutation and crossing rates
in the evolution phase for the genetic algorithm. Also
membership functions can be explored for modelling fuzzy
sets.
S. Enhancing Performance of Deep Learning Based
Text Summarizer [19]
by Maya John. This paper aims to enhance the performance
of currently present deep learning model used for text
summarization.
In current deep learning models the summary sentences
form the minority class which is very small when compared
to the majority class which leads to inaccuracy in summary
generation. To enhance the performance, data can be
resampled before giving it to the deep learning model.
The proposed system is divided in steps for simplicity.
These are text preprocessing, feature extraction, resampling
and classification. Inside text preprocessing we have
tokenization, stop words removal, stemming and
lemmatization. Along with this several resampling
mechanisms are discussed in the paper which can be used on
the dataset for improving the classifier performance.
T. Cut and Paste Based Text Summarization [20]
by Hongyan Jing. This paper’s text summarization model is
based on the examination of human written abstract for a
specific text.
The model extracts text from the input for generating
summary and removes the inessential phrases from the text.
The phrases given as output then join together to form
coherency. This is done on the basis of a statistically based
sentence decomposition program which finds where the
phrases of a summary begins in the original text input. By
this it produces an aligned corpus of the summary along with
the articles used to make the summary.
The model uses Corpus of human-written abstract for
analyzing the input. It also uses WordNet for Sentence
reduction and Sentence combination. Even though it is very
accurate, when we test this model with current models it is
very simple and old compared to the ones that are being
used currently. A lot of advancement has been done in this
field after the time this paper was published.
3. CONCLUSIONS
Automatic text summarization is an attractive topic of
research with a variety of business applications.
Summarizing can help with a variety of downstream
applications, including news digests, report generation, news
summarization, and headline development, by condensing
enormous amounts of information into short bursts.
Summarization algorithms can be divided into two types.
Summaries are created by copying and rearranging
portions of the source text in extractive summarizing
systems. Second, abstractive summarization methods create
new phrases by rephrasing or substituting words not found
in the original text. The vast bulk of previous work has been
done in the field of extractive summarization since
abstractive summarization is more complex than extractive.
The extractive approach is more straightforward because
copying big sections of text from the original document
ensures grammar and accuracy. Paraphrasing, Generalization
and Assimilation are a part of abstractive summarization.
Even though abstractive summarization is a more difficult
process, thanks to recent improvements in the deep learning
field, there have been some progress.
REFERENCES
[1] Abdullah Faiz Ur Rahman Khilji, Utkarsh Sinha, Pintu
Singh, Adnan Ali, and Partha Pakray. Abstractive text
summarization approaches with analysis of evaluation
techniques. In International Conference on
Computational Intelligence in Communications and
Business Analytics, pages 243–258. Springer, 2021.
[2] Saeedeh Gholamrezazadeh, Mohsen Amini Salehi, and
Bahareh Gholamzadeh. A comprehensive survey on text

summarization systems. In 2009 2nd International
Conference on Computer Science and its Applications,
pages 1–6. IEEE, 2009.
[3] Angel´ Hernańdez-Castan˜eda, René Arnulfo
Garc´ıaHernańdez, Yulia Ledeneva, and Christian
Eduardo Millań-Hernańdez. Extractive automatic text
summarization based on lexical-semantic keywords.
IEEE Access, 8:49896–49907, 2020.
[4] Atif Khan, Naomie Salim, Haleem Farman, Murad Khan,
Bilal Jan, Awais Ahmad, Imran Ahmed, and Anand Paul.
Abstractive text summarization based on improved
semantic graph approach. International Journal of
Parallel Programming, 46(5):992–1016, 2018.
[5] A Pai. Text summarizer using abstractive and extractive
method. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology, 3(5):2278–0181, 2014.
[6] Rasim Alguliev, Ramiz Aliguliyev, et al. Evolutionary
algorithm for extractive text summarization. Intelligent
Information Management, 1(02):128, 2009.
[7] Santosh Kumar Bharti and Korra Sathya Babu.
Automatic keyword extraction for text summarization: A
survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03242, 2017.
[8] Santosh Kumar Bharti, Korra Sathya Babu, Anima
Pradhan, S Devi, TE Priya, E Orhorhoro, O Orhorhoro, V
Atumah, E Baruah, P Konwar, et al. Automatic keyword
extraction for text summarization in multidocument e-
newspapers articles. European Journal of Advances in
Engineering and Technology, 4(6):410–427 , 2017.
[9] Marina Litvak and Mark Last. Graph-based keyword
extraction for single-document summarization. In Coling
2008: Proceedings of the workshop Multi-source
Multilingual Information Extraction and Summarization,
pages 17–24, 2008.
[10] Kastriot Kadriu and Milenko Obradovic. Extractive
approach for text summarisation using graphs. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2106.10955, 2021.
[11] Rajesh Shardan and Uday Kulkarni. Implementation and
evaluation of evolutionary connectionist approaches to
automated text summarization. 2010.
[12] Rajesh Shardanand Prasad, Nitish Milind Uplavikar,
Sanket Shantilalsa Wakhare, VY Jain, Tejas Avinash, et al.
Feature based text summarization. International journal
of advances in computing and information researches, 1,
2012.
[13] Tejas Yedke, Vishal Jain, and RS Prasad. Review of
proposed architectures for automated text
summarization. In Proceedings of International
Conference on Advances in Computing, pages 155–161.
Springer, 2013.
[14] Alok Rai, Yashashree Patil, Pooja Sulakhe, Gaurav Lal,
and Rajesh S Prasad. Automatic extractive text
summarizer (aets): Using genetic algorithm. no, 3:2824–
2833 , 2017.
[15] Rajesh S Prasad, UV Kulkarni, and Jayashree R Prasad. A
novel evolutionary connectionist text summarizer (ects).
In 2009 3rd International Conference on
Anticounterfeiting, Security, and Identification in
Communication, pages 606–610. IEEE, 2009.
[16] Abu Kaisar Mohammad Masum, Sheikh Abujar, Md
Ashraful Islam Talukder, AKM Shahariar Azad Rabby,
and Syed Akhter Hossain. Abstractive method of text
summarization with sequence to sequence rnns. In 2019
10th International Conference on Computing,
Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT),
pages 1–5. IEEE, 2019.
[17] Hari Disle Sameer Gorule Ketan Gotaranr Diksha Kumar,
Sumeet Bhalekar. Automatic text summarization using
local scoring and ranking. In 2017 international
conference on computing methodologies and
communica-tion (ICCMC), pages 59–64. IJRTI, 2019.
[18] Daniel Leite and L Rino. A genetic fuzzy automatic text
summarizer. Csbc2009. Inf. Ufrgs. Br, 2007:779– 788,
2009.
[19] Maya John and JS Jayasudha. Enhancing performance of
deep learning based text summarizer. Int. J. Appl. Eng.
Res, 12(24):15986–15993, 2017.
[20] Hongyan Jing and Kathleen McKeown. Cut and paste
based text summarization. In 1st Meeting of the North
American Chapter of the Association for Computational
Linguistics, 2000.

Automatic Text Summarization: A Critical Review

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Automatic Text Summarization: A Critical Review (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Automatic Text Summarization: A Critical Review