Papers › Toward Unifying Text Segmentation and Long Document Summarization
Toward Unifying Text Segmentation and Long Document Summarization
Sangwoo Cho, Kaiqiang Song, Xiaoyang Wang, Fei Liu, Dong Yu
Text segmentation is important for signaling a document's structure. Without segmenting a long document into topically coherent sections, it is difficult for readers to comprehend the text, let alone find important information. The problem is only exacerbated by a lack of segmentation in transcripts of audio/video recordings. In this paper, we explore the role that section segmentation plays in extractive summarization of written and spoken documents. Our approach learns robust sentence representations by performing summarization and segmentation simultaneously, which is further enhanced by an optimization-based regularizer to promote selection of diverse summary sentences. We conduct experiments on multiple datasets ranging from scientific articles to spoken transcripts to evaluate the model's performance. Our findings suggest that the model can not only achieve state-of-the-art performance on publicly available benchmarks, but demonstrate better cross-genre transferability when equipped with text segmentation. We perform a series of analyses to quantify the impact of section segmentation on summarizing written and spoken documents of substantial length and complexity.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
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
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Text Summarization | Arxiv HEP-TH citation graph | Lodoss-full-large (extractive) | ROUGE-1 | 48.45 | #7 of 28 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Arxiv HEP-TH citation graph | Lodoss-full-large (extractive) | ROUGE-2 | 20.72 | #7 of 28 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Arxiv HEP-TH citation graph | Lodoss-full-large (extractive) | ROUGE-L | 42.55 | #7 of 28 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Arxiv HEP-TH citation graph | Lodoss-full-base (extractive) | ROUGE-1 | 48.20 | #10 of 28 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Arxiv HEP-TH citation graph | Lodoss-full-base (extractive) | ROUGE-2 | 20.50 | #10 of 28 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Arxiv HEP-TH citation graph | Lodoss-full-base (extractive) | ROUGE-L | 42.28 | #10 of 28 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Pubmed | Lodoss-full-large (extractive) | ROUGE-1 | 49.38 | #6 of 29 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Pubmed | Lodoss-full-large (extractive) | ROUGE-2 | 23.89 | #6 of 29 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Pubmed | Lodoss-full-large (extractive) | ROUGE-L | 44.84 | #6 of 29 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Pubmed | Lodoss-full-base (extractive) | ROUGE-1 | 48.93 | #8 of 29 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Pubmed | Lodoss-full-base (extractive) | ROUGE-2 | 23.51 | #8 of 29 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Text Summarization | Pubmed | Lodoss-full-base (extractive) | ROUGE-L | 44.40 | #8 of 29 | 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