Papers › Reading Like HER: Human Reading Inspired Extractive Summarization

Reading Like HER: Human Reading Inspired Extractive Summarization

1 Nov 2019IJCNLP 2019 11archive 2025-07-28

Ling Luo, Xiang Ao, Yan Song, Feiyang Pan, Min Yang, Qing He

In this work, we re-examine the problem of extractive text summarization for long documents. We observe that the process of extracting summarization of human can be divided into two stages: 1) a rough reading stage to look for sketched information, and 2) a subsequent careful reading stage to select key sentences to form the summary. By simulating such a two-stage process, we propose a novel approach for extractive summarization. We formulate the problem as a contextual-bandit problem and solve it with policy gradient. We adopt a convolutional neural network to encode gist of paragraphs for rough reading, and a decision making policy with an adapted termination mechanism for careful reading. Experiments on the CNN and DailyMail datasets show that our proposed method can provide high-quality summaries with varied length, and significantly outperform the state-of-the-art extractive methods in terms of ROUGE metrics.

PaperPDFCode

Code

LLluoling/HER officialpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Decision MakingExtractive SummarizationExtractive Text SummarizationText Summarization

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Extractive Text Summarization CNN / Daily Mail HER ROUGE-1 42.3 #9 of 15 Archive leaderboard report
Extractive Text Summarization CNN / Daily Mail HER ROUGE-2 18.9 #9 of 15 Archive leaderboard report
Extractive Text Summarization CNN / Daily Mail HER ROUGE-L 37.9 #9 of 15 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections