Scientific abstracts provide a concise summary of research findings, making them a valuable resource for extracting scientific arguments. In this study, we assess various unsupervised approaches for extracting arguments as aligned premise-conclusion pairs: semantic similarity, text perplexity, and mutual information. We aggregate structured abstracts from PubMed Central Open Access papers published in 2022 and evaluate the argument aligners in terms of the performance of language models that we fine-tune to generate the conclusions from the extracted premise given as input prompts. We find that mutual information outperforms the other measures on this task, suggesting that the reasoning process in scientific abstracts hinges mostly on linguistic constructs beyond simple textual similarity.

Citation generation aims to generate a citation sentence that refers to a chosen paper in the context of a manuscript. However, a rigid citation generation process is at odds with an author’s desire to control specific attributes, such as 1) the citation intent, e.g., either introducing background information or comparing results, and 2) keywords that should appear in the citation text. To provide these degrees of controllability during citation generation, we propose to integrate the manuscript context, the context of the referenced paper, and the desired control attributes into a structured template and use it to fine-tune a language model (LM) via next-token prediction. We then utilize Proximal Policy Optimization to directly optimize the LM in favor of a high score of our proposed controllability metric. The proposed workflow harmoniously combines citation attribute suggestion and conditional citation generation into one LM, allowing for better user control.

The abstracts of scientific papers typically contain both premises (e.g., background and observations) and conclusions. Although conclusion sentences are highlighted in structured abstracts, in non-structured abstracts the concluding information is not explicitly marked, which makes the automatic segmentation of conclusions from scientific abstracts a challenging task. In this work, we explore Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) as a means for abstract segmentation. We consider each abstract as a recurrent cycle of sentences and place two segmentation boundaries by greedily optimizing the NMI score between the two segments, assuming that conclusions are strongly semantically linked with preceding premises. On non-structured abstracts, our proposed unsupervised approach GreedyCAS achieves the best performance across all evaluation metrics; on structured abstracts, GreedyCAS outperforms all baseline methods measured by P_k. The strong correlation of NMI to our evaluation metrics reveals the effectiveness of NMI for abstract segmentation.

We introduce MemSum (Multi-step Episodic Markov decision process extractive SUMmarizer), a reinforcement-learning-based extractive summarizer enriched at each step with information on the current extraction history. When MemSum iteratively selects sentences into the summary, it considers a broad information set that would intuitively also be used by humans in this task: 1) the text content of the sentence, 2) the global text context of the rest of the document, and 3) the extraction history consisting of the set of sentences that have already been extracted. With a lightweight architecture, MemSum obtains state-of-the-art test-set performance (ROUGE) in summarizing long documents taken from PubMed, arXiv, and GovReport. Ablation studies demonstrate the importance of local, global, and history information. A human evaluation confirms the high quality and low redundancy of the generated summaries, stemming from MemSum’s awareness of extraction history.

Abstractive summarization typically relies on large collections of paired articles and summaries. However, in many cases, parallel data is scarce and costly to obtain. We develop an abstractive summarization system that relies only on large collections of example summaries and non-matching articles. Our approach consists of an unsupervised sentence extractor that selects salient sentences to include in the final summary, as well as a sentence abstractor that is trained on pseudo-parallel and synthetic data, that paraphrases each of the extracted sentences. We perform an extensive evaluation of our method: on the CNN/DailyMail benchmark, on which we compare our approach to fully supervised baselines, as well as on the novel task of automatically generating a press release from a scientific journal article, which is well suited for our system. We show promising performance on both tasks, without relying on any article-summary pairs.

We propose a simple method for post-processing the outputs of a text summarization system in order to refine its overall quality. Our approach is to train text-to-text rewriting models to correct information redundancy errors that may arise during summarization. We train on synthetically generated noisy summaries, testing three different types of noise that introduce out-of-context information within each summary. When applied on top of extractive and abstractive summarization baselines, our summary denoising models yield metric improvements while reducing redundancy.

We propose a simple unsupervised method for extracting pseudo-parallel monolingual sentence pairs from comparable corpora representative of two different text styles, such as news articles and scientific papers. Our approach does not require a seed parallel corpus, but instead relies solely on hierarchical search over pre-trained embeddings of documents and sentences. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through automatic and extrinsic evaluation on text simplification from the normal to the Simple Wikipedia. We show that pseudo-parallel sentences extracted with our method not only supplement existing parallel data, but can even lead to competitive performance on their own.