Automatic Text Summarization B ased on S emantic

Analysis Approach for Documents in Indonesian

Language
Pandu Prakoso Tardan 1 , Alva Erwin 1 , Kho I Eng l , Wahyu Muliady2
1 Information Technology Faculty
Swiss German University, BSD, Tangerang, Indonesia
2 Akon Teknologi
BSD, Tangerang, Indonesia
l { p a n du . t a r da n @ s t u d e n t . a l va . e rw i n @ , i e . kh o @ } s gu . a c . i d
2 wahyu . mu l i a dy @ a k o n p r o j e ct s . o r g

Abstract-Research about text summarization has been quite
an interesting topic over the years, proven by numerous number
of papers related with discussion of their studies such as
approaches, challenges and trends. This paper's goal is to d efine
a measurement for text summarization using Semantic Analysis
Approach for Documents in Indonesian language. The applied
measurement requires Indonesian version of WordNet which had
b een implemented roughly. The main idea of semantic analysis
is to obtain the similarity b etween sentences by calculating the
vector values of each sentence with the title. The need of WordNet
is to d efine the depth of each word as being computed for word
similarity. Combining all required formulas and calculations,
a compact and precise summarization is produced without
depriving the gist information of certain document.
Index Terms-Text summarization, semantic analysis, sentence
similarity, word similarity, Indonesian document
approach for Indonesian language-based document. The prob­
lems defined in this research are limited researches of text
sUlmnarization development for Indonesian documents and
achieving an acceptable quality for the generated summary.
Therefore, semantic analysis is chosen as the approach with
high expectations to achieve the best summary result quality.
This paper contains six more chapters as follows respec­
tively : Section 2 explains related works, significant features
are presented in Section 3 , word similarity measurement is
explained in Section 4, Section 5 presents sentence similarity
and ranking, the results and measurements comparison will be
given in Section 6, Section 7 will gives the result and Section
8 explains the conclussion and future works.

II. RELATED WORKS

I . INTRODUCTION
A quote from Oxford English Dictionary defined automatic
text summarization as "The creation of a shortened version
of a text by a computer program" [ 1 ] . The summary should
represents the gist informations of a text. Instead of conduct­
ing manual self-summarization, automatic text summarization
should take over that role. For that purpose, numerous number
of researches had been done.
There are two classifications of summarization method;
extractive and abstractive summarization. The extractive sum­
marization performs the extraction of important and relevant
sentences or other features in a more dense form. On the
other hand, abstractive summarization tends to reveal the
meaning of a text and paraphrase the summarization. There­
fore, this proposed measurement is classified as extractive
sUlmnarization as its result is a set of relevant sentences
which are not paraphrased. For extractive summarization, the
important features [2] are content word, title word, sentence
location, sentence length, proper noun, etc. Regarding to the
current facts, applying semantic analysis approach in text
summarization may achieve certain level of accuracy.
The goal of this research is developing a measurement
for automatic text sUlmnarization using semantic analysis
There are numerous researches in text mmmg area; spe­
cialized in the automatic text summarization. Years ago, pair
of researchers [ 1 ] listed the trends of Automatic Text Sum­
marization over the years such as statistical approach [3] , [4] ,
[5] , [6] , natural language processing (NLP) , semantic analysis
approach [7] , fuzzy logic [8] and swarm intelligence [9] .
By exploring and analyzing the strengthss and limitations of
previous methods, another measurement could be discovered
as the purpose is to outrank the previous methods.
Inside the category of semantic analysis approach, the
existence of ontology knowledge tends to be critical proven by
related researches [ 1 0] , [7] . The common ontology knowledge
is WordNet [ 1 1 ] , [ 1 2] as a lexical ontology word resource.
Therefore, our research used WordNet for Indonesian language
[ 1 3] , [ 1 4] as the lexical word resources.
In extractive text summarization, sentence weighting plays
an important role. Achieving the sentence weighting requires
sentence similarity measurements. Through the list of pro­
posed sentence similarity methods [ 1 5 ] , [ 1 6] , [ 1 7 ] , the pro­
posed method from Li and McLean should be the best applied
method for the limitation of this research.
Despite of the various researches in this field, the pub­
lications of Indonesian text summarization [ 1 8] , [ 1 9] are

978-1-4799-0425-9/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE


proven to be infrequent. The only highly notable research of
Indonesian text summarization was conducted using genetic
algorithm [ 1 8] . Therefore, chances to research in Indonesian
text summarization field are still wide-open.
III. S Y S TEM OVERVIEW
Figure 1 shows the main phases of generating summary
based on this proposed measurement such as Pre-Processing,
Feature Computation, Feature Ranking and Generating Sum­
mary. The document is pre-processed for eliminating the
noises and wastes which exist in the original document so
that the result from pre-processing phase can be processed
for further phases . This phase consist of Sentence Extraction,
Tokenization, Stop Words Removal, N-Gram Detection and
Stemming. The further details will be described in Section 4.
... Pre-Processing Feature
Computation
I
Generating Feature
Su mma ry Ranking
Figure I . The Proposed Measurement Architecture
The purpose of Feature Computation phase is to extract and
calculate the sentence similarity value between each sentence
and the title. The basic idea of using that computation is
to rank sentences based on the relevancy with the whole
document which the main meaning is implied in the title. This
phase consist of two sub-measurement; Word Similarity Mea­
surement and Sentence Similarity Measurement. The details of
those sub-measurement will be described in Section 5 and 6.
In the Feature Ranking phase, the sentence similarity values
will be ranked ascendingly ; from the highest to the lowest
value. Afterwards, sentences that are considerably irrelevant
should be eliminated since the general summary just extracts
the gist information in the document.
For altering the summary result to become more readable,
another process should be conducted. In the Generating Sum­
mary phase, the ranked sentences are sorted based on the
position in the document. This phase is required to generate
a readable sUlmnary that has a good flow of information. In
conclusion, the result of the overall phases in this proposed
measurement generates the relevant sentences in the readable
summary format.
IV. TEXT S UMMARIZATION PRE- PROCE S S ING FEATURES
Regarding the scope, topic and proposed method of this
research, the proposed text summarization pre-processing fea­
tures are defined as follows: WordNet, N-Gram, Stemming and
Stop Words.
2
A. WordNet
WordNet is a lexical word database with features of map­
ping similar words into synonym sets or synsets to denote se­
mantic relationship between sets . [ 1 2] Over the years, Prince­
ton University had managed to develop WordNet for English
language containing large sets of words and classifications
such as noun, verbs, adjective and adverb. In 2008, researchers
from University of Indonesia constructed Indonesian version
of WordNet [ 1 3] then another research for building WordNet
with Monolingual Lexical Resources were conducted too
in 20 1 0 [ 1 4] . Proven the implementations of WordNet for
Indonesian are exist and published, the access for sensitive
resources of Indonesian WordNet is somehow confidential.
Therefore, a raw self-implementation of Indonesian Wordnet
is required.
B. N-gram
N-gram is an adj oining array of n items in a text or speech .
A n-gram could form a word or phrase. The range of n in
n-gram is from 1 referred as unigram, 2 referred as bigram
and 3 referred as trigram. Researchers named Brown and
deSouza [20] discussed a classification of certain n-gram from
the stream of text. They extract the valid n-gram based on
the frequency of words or phrases in the document plus their
relations with their adj acent words. However, in this paper's
scope, a n-gram is considered valid if the respective n-gram
is found in the WordNet.
C. Stemming
Stenuning is a process of compressing affixed words using
certain rules into its root form or so called stem. In this paper,
stelmning algorithm is used in word similarity measurement
process for normalizing affixed words which have similar stem
in order to calculate their base form similaritynot based on
the actual form. Many approaches of Indonesian stemming
have been proposed [2 1 ] , [22] . A survey paper for Indone­
sian stemming composed the statistics of performance and
stemming correction percentage comparison. Its result stated
that stemming algorithm proposed by Nazief and Adriani
( 1 996) were considered for being the most efficient since
its correction percentage is 9 3 % . Therefore, this paper used
Nazief and Adriani [22] proposed algorithm for stemming.
D. Stop Words
Stop words is list of over-commonly words in corpora
which are filtered for being not relevant in natural language
data or text. The inclusion of stop words in text could bias
the tangible value of sentences or corpus. Results of both
ignoring and including stop words in pre-processing phases
proved significantly different which ignorance of stop words
give better subjectivity measurement result.
V. WORD S IMILARITY MEAS UREMENT
Semantic similarity is an idea of assigning metric based
values of documents or terms based on meaning or semantic
similarity. To perceive the semantic value of documents or
terms, word similarity measurement process should be adopted
first. There are two main features for word similarity such as
depth of words and Wu & Palmer measurement.
A. Depth of Words
To obtain semantic similarity of two words using synthetical
WordNet, defining depth of those words is prioritized before
further calculation. Depth of words are acquired by traversing
the shortest distance paths from one word to another word
using synonym sets or synsets graph. Essentially, the more
paths from one word to another word are traversed, the more
depth' s value are given. The calculation is defined in formula
(1):
where w l and W2 are the words, respectively;
paths(wl , W2 ) is collection of paths value from w l and W 2 ;
min(paths (wl , W2 ) ) i s the minimum value of paths(wl , W2).
For example, the paths from word makan and minum are four
(4), three (3) and six (6) . Since the depth of words extracts
the shortest distance path between two words, the value of
depth( makan, minum) is three.
B. Wu & Palmer Measurement
Wu & Palmer calculates the similarity measurement of
two concepts by enumerating the depths of those concepts in
WordNet taxonomy. The measurement includes depth of Least
Common Subsumer (LCS) and the depths of the respective
words. The formula is defined as follows in formula (2) :
2 * depth(lcs(Wl , W2)
.
szmwp (W I , W 2 ) = (2)
depth ( W I , W2 ) + depth ( W2 , W I )
Least COlmnon Subsumer (LCS) is a shortest distance of
two concept compared in lexical taxonomy. For example,
organisme and plantae are the subsumers of oryza sativa
and zea mays L. , but plantae is the less common subsumer
than organisme for them. In this paper, we use our raw self­
implementation of Indonesian WordNet which is considered as
simple and incomplete. Thus, since the taxonomy relationship
of our WordNet is still raw, we consider the depth of LCS is
one as the depth of a root in taxonomy.
V I . S ENTENCE S IMILARITY MEAS UREMENT AND
RANKING
Most measurements can be categorized into two groups:
edge counting-based (or dictionary/thesaurus-based) and infor­
mation theory-based (or corpus-based) [ 1 7 ] . After investigat­
ing those measurements, we propose the base of our sentence
similarity measurement should be categorized in dictionary­
based methods. Therefore, an appropriate method proposed by
Li and McLean [ 1 7] should be the best reference for sentence
similarity measurement since their research based on semantic
approach. However, some modifications of their methods are
necessary due to differences in required features.
Title : Prediksi Squad Liverpool Kootra Indone si a XI
Seoteoce Similarity
Sentence Value
Liverp o ol a.k.a.n melawan Indonesia XI dalam laga
0 . 7 3 64 3 8 940 8 9 02 1 3 8
persahabatan di Stadion Gelera Bung Kamo
Pelatih " The Reds" Brendan Rodgers kemungkinan
b e s ar akan melakukan banyak eksperimen pada 0 . 8 6 3 9 8274 6 5 0 72 1 2
pe:nandingan nanti
Bleacherreport memiliki prediksi skuad Liverpool 0 . 9 0 5 7 6 3 9 5 24245 1 9 6
yang akan diturunkan
Rod gers sep ertinya akan menggunakan formasi 4-2-2-
1 - 1 untuk membun gkam Boaz Sol o55 a dan kawan- 0 . 8 0 2 2 5 4 3 1 7 76 94 1 3 9
kawan
Figure 2. Example Result of Sentence Similarity Measurement using Cosine
Similairity method
A. Semantic Vector Derivatization
To illustrate the details of sentence similarity computation,
we provide two sentences as follow:
• S I = Spesies lemur tikus baru ditemukan
• S2= Lemur adalah anggota keluarga primata seperti hal-
nya monyet
From those sets, tokenization and stop words disposal process
should be accomplished for both sets. To equate the dimension
of both semantic vectors for further calculation, their dimen­
sion's lengths must follow the formula (3):
length(s V l,2) = length(sd + length(s2) (3)
where length( S I ) and length( s) is the amount of words
in s l and S2 respectively without any stop words included.
Using that formula, we can form a matrix of word similarity
values as illustrated in Table I which each cell consists of the
similarity result of words from respective row and column.
This, semantic vector values of S V l , 2 is formed by extracting
the highest values in each column of matrix below. The
semantic vector of SVl,2is:
SVl , 2 = { I l l 1 1 0.33 0.5 1 0.22 0.13}
The same way applied for deriving SV2 , 1 as below is the
result:
SV2 , 1 = { I l l 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.13 0.2}
B. Semantic Vector Computation
After semantic vectors from two sentences have been
formed, the next step is computing the similarity of those
vectors using various possible methods such as Euclidean
distance and Cosine similarity. Regardless of the current
context, there should be an explanation of Jaccard similarity
formula even though it is not included in semantic analysis
approach. Figure 2 shows an example of semantic similarity
measurement computation results for an article.
1) Euclidean Distance: The Euclidean distance is a mea­
surement of distance that one would measure with a ruler.
Basically, the distance between two points is the length of the
line segment connecting them by using Euclidean distance.
The formula of general Euclidean distance between two points
(p,q) is given as follows :
 4

Table I
SEMANTIC VECTOR DERIVATlZATlON PROCES S

Spesies lemur tikus I ditemukan I Lemur I anggota I keluarga primata halnya monyet
Spesies I 0.13 0.09 0. 1 8 0.13 0.33 0.5 0.13 0.22 0.1
lemur 0.13 1 0.13 0.13 1 0.13 0.13 1 0.13 0.13
tikus 0.09 0.13 1 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.07
ditemukan 0. 1 8 0.13 0.09 1 0.13 0. 1 8 0.2 0.13 0. 1 8 0.09
+ + + + + + + + +
8V l , 2 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.5 1 0.22 0.13

Title : Pre:diksi Squad Liverpool Kontra Indone si a XI

n

d(p, q) = 2:: ( qi - Pi) 2 (4) Sentence

Sentence Similarity

i =l
Value
Bleacherreportmemiliki prediksi skuad Liverpool 0 . 9 0 5 7 6 3 9 5 2424 5 1 9 6
y a n g akan dirurunkan
Pelarib "Th e Reds" Brendan Rodgers kemungkinan
where the result is the distance between two points or b e s ar akan m elakukan b anyak eksperimen p ad a 0 . 8 6 3 9 8 2 74 6 5 0 72 1 2
vectors. The conversion formula from distance to similarity pel1andingan nanti
Rodgers s epertinya akan menggunakan formasi 4 -2-2-
is given as follows : I - I untuk membtmgkam B o az Solossa dan kawan- 0. 8 02 2 5 4 3 1 7 7 694 1 3 9
kawan

. 1 Liverpool akan m elawan Indonesia XI dalarn laga

stm( p, q) =
1 + d(p, q)
(5) pers ahabatan di Sladi on Geler. Bung Kamo
0 . 7 3 6 4 3 8 94 0 8 9 0 2 1 3 8

which the constant of one as denominator is used for Figure 3 . Example Result of Sentence Ranking
eliminating the possible values of zero. The similarity value
of S l and S2 is 0.372 1760683269597 using this euclidean
3) At the end of the paragraph (Inductive Paragraph)
similarity.
Therefore, considering that deductive paragraph is the most
2) Cosine Similarity: Unlike euclidean distance, cosine
c ornmon type among other two, inclusion of the first sentence
similarity is a similarity measurement between two vectors
in every paragraph or article into text summarization should
by considering the cosine angle between them. The maximum
be done. Thus, those main sentences are also used for helping
value of this similarity is 1 since cosine value of the lowest
the result to become more readable format.
angle which is 0° is 1 . The formula is given as follows:

.
stm( p, q) cos (B)
p.q (6) D. Sentence Ranking
p II . II q II
= =
II The basic idea of text sUlmnarization is extracting the
By using this formula, the similarity value of s l and S2 is relevant informations of a text or document. The extracted
0.726 1 97552605 1 l 7 8 . informations or sentences should be ranked based on their
3 ) Jaccard Similarity: Jaccard similarity is a similarity relevances with the essence of the text. To obtain the sentence's
measurement for evaluating the diversity of sets. In general, value of relevance, sentence similarity between each sentences
this similarity computes the distance between two sets by in the content and title is calculated. From that list of similar­
counting both match and mismatch elements. This compu­ ities, we eliminate sentences that are considered irrelevant by
tation does not require WordNet as lexical word database calculating first the mean of them using this equation:
since this method can be classified in statistical approach; not
n
1
2:: ai
semantic analysis . The formula is given as follows:
X = (9)
n i =l
-

I pnq I
J (p, q) = I p U q I (7)
where n i s the size o f the sentence list and i s the value ai
in ith sentence. Afterwards, sentences with the values below
where can be derived into :
mean are considered irrelevant with the text and shouldn't
Mn be included in summarization. The relevant sentences are
J (p, q) =
Ml O + MO l + Mu
(8) then sorted based on the position in text. Theoretically, these
processes would produce text summarization with a human­
The j accard similarity value between s l and S2 is 0.2.
friendly readable format. Figure 3 illustrates an example
of sentence ranking result based on the sentence similarity
C. Sentence Position value, whereas Figure 4 shows the list of sentences that are
The gist informations of a document is also determined considered as relevant with the document.
by the position of sentence in documents. A good writing
document should place the main idea in these particular VII . RES ULT
location: Tests were performed by implementing text summarization
1) At the beginning of the paragraph (Deductive Paragraph) based on the proposed measurements above and comparing
2) In the middle of the paragraph each of the results. The comparison of result will be based
 MK: DPO Berwenang Bahas UlJ Terk ait Daerah
Title : Prediksi Squad Liverpool Kontra Indonesia XI
Mahkamah Kons t i tus i memutu s kan bahwa D ewan Pe rwak ilan Il ae rah ( IlPIl )
Sentence Similarity be rwen an g untu k i kut s e rt a meng aj ukan dan membah a s Ran cangan
Sentence Value Undang-Undang yang t e rkai t dae r ah .
Bleacherreport memiliki pre diksi skuad Liverpool 0 . 9 05 7 6 3 9 5 2424 5 1 9 6
yang akan dirurunkan Ilal am pu tus an yang d ib a c a k an Rabu (27 /3/201 3 ) , MK meng abul kan
Pelanh "The Reds" Brendan Rodgers kemungkinan s ebagian pe rmohon an uj i ma t e ri at as UU 27/2 009 d a n UU 1 2 / 20 1 1 .
b e s ar akan m elakukan b anyak eksperimen pada 0 . 8 6 3 98274 6 5 072 1 2
pertandingan nann Menurut MK, IlP D j uga memi l i ki h ak menyusun program l e g i s l as i
nas i onal ( Prol e gnas ) s ebab kedudukan DPIl s e t ara d e ngan Pre s i den da n
IlPR .
Figure 4. Example Result of Sentence Ranking after eliminating Irrelevant
Sentences UU 27/20 09 ada l ah t e ntang Maj e l i s Pe rmus y aw arat an Raky at , Ile wan
P e rwakil an Rak yat , Il ewan P e rwak i lan Il ae rah , dan Il ewan Pe rk'ak ilan
Rakyat Il ae rah .
MK: DPD Berwenang Bahas UlJ Terk ai t Daerah

Mahkamah Kon3 t i tU3 i memutu3 k an bahw a D ewan P e rwaki l an Dae rah ( DP D )

S edangka n UU 1 2/201 1 me rup akan UU ten t ang P embent ukan Pe ratu ran
Pe rund an g-Undan gan .
be rwen an g untu k iJruc s e rt a mengaj ukan dan membaha3 R ancang an
Undang-Undang y ang t e r kait d ae rah . D al am putu3 an yang d ibacak an
Uj i mat e ri a t a s kedu a UU t e rs ebut di a j ukan ol eh Ke tua DPIl I rman
Rabu (2 7 / 3 { 2 0 1 3 ) , MK me ngabu l kan 3 e bag i an pe rmoh onan uj i mat e ri
Gusman , Waki l Ke tua IlPIl La ode Ida, da n Waki l Ke tu a DPIl Gus t i
atas UlJ 2 7 / 2 0 0 9 d an UlJ 12/2 01 1 . " Pen yu sunan Prog ram L e gi s l a s i
Kanj eng Ratu H emas .
Nas i onal d il aks a nakan ol eh IlPR , D PD , dan Pe me rint ah , " un gkap Ke t ua
Maj e l is Hakim Kons t i tus i s e ka ligus Ke tu a MK, Mahfud MIl , dal am
Menanggapi put u s an i n i , Ke tua Il PIl I rman GU3 man me ngaku gembi ra
putus ann ya . Menuru t MK, IlPD j ug a memi l i ki hak menyusun progr am dengan putus an MK yang rev olus i one r .
l e gi s l as i n as i o nal ( Pr ol e gna s ) s ebab kedudukan Il PIl s e t a ra de n g an
Pre s ide.n dan DPR . UU 27 {2009 adal ah t e nt ang Maj e l i 3 " l ni har i be rs e j arah , s eh i ngga pe l aks anaan tupoks i DPD m.endapat
Pe rmus yawarat an Rakyat , D ewan Pe rwak i l an Ra k:yat , Dewan Pe rwaki l an t empat s ebagai man a s eharus nya , " kata l rman ..
Ilae rah , dan Il e wan Pe rwa kil an Rak yat Ilae rah . S edang kan UU 12/20 11
me rupaka n UU t e nt ang P embent ukan P e ratur an Pe rundang -Undan gan . Uj i
Figure 6. Summarization Result of Figure 1 using Cosine Similarity
mat e ri atas kedua UU t e rs ebut di aj ukan ol eh Ke tu a DP D I rman
GU3man , W aki l Ke tua IlPIl Laode Ida , da n Wakil Ke tua IlPD Gus ti
Kanj eng Ra tu Hemas . Hakim ko ns tit us i Ak i l Mocht ar , s aat me mbacak an MK: DPD Berwen ang Bahas UlJ Terk ai t Daerah
pe rtimba ngann y a , menj e l as k an IlPIl bisa me ngaj uk an RUU d an t id a k
bol eh dibe dakan de ngan wew en ang p re s ide n dan IlPR . " Namun d emi ki a n , Mahkamah Kons t i tus i memutu s kan bahwa Ilewan Pe rwak i l an Il ae rah ( DPIl )

Il PIl hanya memi li ki wewen a ng mengaj u kan RUU t e rka i t dae rah , yang be rwenan g untu k ikut s e rt a m.en g aj ukan dan membaha s Rancangan

men cakup ot onomi , pe ri mbang an keuangan an t ara pu s at dan dae rah , Undang-Undang yang t e rkai t dae r ah .

hubungan peme ri nt ah pu s at dan dae rah , pemb entukan dan p eme kar an
s e rt a pen ggabun gan dae rah , s e rt a pe nge l ol aan sumbe r da ya al am , n
Ilal am pu tus an yang d ibacak an Rabu ( 2 7 3 2 0 1 3 ) , MK mengabul kan
ucap Aki l . Men a nggapi put us an ini , Ke tua DPD l rman Gus man menga ku
s ebag i an pe rmohon an uj i ma t e ri at; as UU 2 7 2 0 0 9 dan UU 1 2 2 0 1 1 .
gembi ra de ngan put us an MK ya ng revo lus i on e r . " lni h ari be r s e j arah ,
Menurut MK, IlP Il j uga memi l i ki h ak men yusun program l e g i s l as i
s ehingga pe l ak s anaan tupo ks i D PD m.endapat t emp a t s eb agaimana
nas i onal ( Prol e gnas ) s ebab kedudukan DP£) s e t ara d engan Pre s i den dan
s eharus n ya , II kat a l rman .. Ku as a Hukum P emohon , TOOung Mu l ya Lubi s ,
IlPR .
mengat ak an bahwa pu tus an MK me luru3 kan kemba l i pas al 22 Il UUD
1 94 5 , 3 e t; e l ah membe r i kan hak IlPD i kut mengus u lkan , dan meranca ng S edangka n UU 1 22011 me rupa kan UU t ent ang Pe mbentu kan P e ratur an
UU . "MK memb e ri kan hak kepada IlP Il , be rs ama IlPR dan Pre s id en Pe rundan g-Unda ngan .
membahas P rol e g nas ( Pro gram Le gi s l a s i Nas io nal ) me s kipun IlPIl t id a k
ikut d a l am pe r s e tuj u an , " k at;any a . Men anggap i put us an i n i , Ke tua Il PIl I rman Gus man me ngaku gembi ra
den gan putus an MK ya ng rev olus i on e r .

Figure 5. Original document entitled "DPD Sambut Baik Putusan MK Soal I n i hari be rs e j arah , s ehin gga p e l aks a naan t upoks i DPIl mendap at
Kewenangan Legislasi" tempat s ebagaimana s eharus nya , kata l rman .

Figure 7 . Summarization Result of Figure 1 using Euclidean Similarity

on compression rate (CR), subj ectivity measure (SM) of the
accuracy and processing time (PT). However, some examples
• Programming Language Java(TM) SE Environment ver­
of text summarization result should be shown in advance as the
sion 1 .7 . 0_ 1 1
proofs of the proposed measurement. Figure 1 is the original
document and the results of its summarization is given in
Figure 2 and 3 where Figure 2 is the summarization result Table II
RESULT OF MEAS UREMENTS COMPARISON
using cosine similarity and figure 3 is the summarization result
using euclidean similarity. Text Summarization Techniques SM CR PT
Thus, table II shows the comparison result of text sum­ Statistical Approach wI Word Frequency 7 5.96% 76.53% OOmO l s
Semantic Analysis wI Euclidean 85.00% 53 .27% 03m54s
marization experiments using four different techniques. These
Semantic Analysis wI Cosine 83 .46% 46.66% 03m42s
experiments used seventy (70) articles that have twelve ( 1 2) Statistical Approach wI Jaccard 85. 1 8% 47.93% OOm03s
sentences in average as data sets and were run with this
following specifications as the environment of this research This research used human-based evaluation for measuring
implementation: the subjectivity measurement (SM) since it is considered the
• Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) i5-2430M CPU @ best procedure for assessing text summarization. In order to
2.40GHz evaluate based on SM, the evaluators were provided seventy
• Memory 4096Mbyte data sets for each text sUImnarization technique explained in
• Hard Disk Drive 700Gbyte table II. Thus, the evaluators assessed the summary given by
• Operating System Windows 7 Home Basic 64-bit each technique or method based on the relevancy between each
• Database MySQL version 5 . 5 .27 - MySQL Community sentence in summary, the relevancy between each sentence
Server (GPL) in summary and title, the clarity of whole summary and the

existence of irrelevant sentence in summary. Based on those
factors, the evaluators should give scores for each article
summary produced by each technique with the range of one ( 1 )
a s the lowest score and ten ( 1 0) a s the highest. B y using that
way, the subjectivity measurement value for each technique
could be achieved with the accurate assessment.
Another considerable factors for evaluating this measure­
ment are Compression Rate (CR) and Processing Time (PT).
The compression rate value was calculated based on the ratio
between the amount of the sentences in the original document
and the amount of the sentences in the generated summary. On
the other hand, processing time is the value of time required
for processing each technique defined in Table II.
Based on the result shown in Table II, semantic analysis
approaches have the better average accuracy at 84.23 % than
statistical approaches at 80.57% in spite of the considerably
long processing time. However, statistical approach has the
better compression rate average at 62.23 % than semantic
analysis at 49.97 % .
I t is noted that the implemented statistical approach tech­
niques for this research include the sentence ranking and
sentence position features. Thus, it explains the low magnitude
of average result between statistical approach and semantic
analysis, plus the good result from the subjectivity measure.
VIII . C ONCLUS ION AND FUTURE W ORKS
As defined in Section 7, statistical approach has the better
overall result in the previously stated environment specification
and certain data sets . However, semantic analysis may over­
come the result of statistical approach in different environment.
Based on the concept, semantic analysis should generate a
better summary quality than statistical approach. For proofing
the concept even further, a qualify Indonesian WordNet should
be implemented.
Text summarization measurement of matching the title with
every sentence in the content plus inclusion of first sentence in
paragraph or text is proved to be effective. Due to the variant
of sentences meaning in the content, semantic analysis can
be used for finding the most similar meaning of each sen­
tences with title. Therefore, those extracted sentences are the
sUlmnarize outputs of the respective documents . Unfortunately,
since the proposed measurement requires title as the main
feature, certain documents with short title may not give the
best summarization. In conclusion, the best testing set for this
measurement is articles.
One of the unimplemented features in this research is
eliminating the junk sentences . Junk sentences are sentences
that doesn't have relevancy with the document's meaning.
Theoriticaly, discarding the junk sentences should increase the
compression rate (CR) and subjectivity measurement (SM).
The quote fragments in the summarization are also decreasing
the SM. The inclusion of those quote fragments may reduce
the subjectivity measure due to their lack of relevancy between
sentences in the readable summarization. There is a suggestion
for replacing those sentences with quotes into new sentences
by paraphrasing them. Thus, sentences with quotes will be
eliminated and the possible result of summarization should
have higher subjectivity measurement value.
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research presented in this paper is supported by Infor­
mation Technology Department of Swiss German University
and Akon Teknologi company.
REFERENCES
[I] Oi Foong, Alan Oxley, and Suziah Sulaiman. Challenges and trends of
automatic text summarization. International Journal of Information and
Telecommunication Technology (ISSN: 0976-5972), 1 ( 1), 20 1 0 .
[2] Vishal Gupta and Gurpreet Lehal. A survey o f text summarization
extractive techniques. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web In·
telligence, 2(3), 20 1 0 .
[ 3 ] H. P. Luhn. The automatic creation o f literature abstracts. IBM Journal
of Research Development, 2(2) : 1 59-165, 1958.
[4] P.B. Baxendale. Machine-made index for technical IiteratureUan exper­
iment. IBM Journal of Research Development, 2(4) :354-3 6 1 , 1958.
[5] Erik Wiener, Jan O. Pedersen, and Andreas S . Weigend. A neural
network approach to topic spotting, 1995.
[6] James Hendler. Agents and the semantic web. IEEE INTELLIGENT
SYSTEMS, 16(2):30-37 , 200 1 .
[7] Rakesh Verma, Ping Chen, and Wei Lu. A semantic free-text summa­
rization system using ontology knowledge. Document Understanding
Conference D UC 2007, pages 1-5, 2007.
[8] Farshad Kyoomarsi, Hamid Khosravi, Esfandiar Eslamiand Pooya Khos­
ravyan Dehkordy, and Asghar Tajoddin. Optimizing text summarization
based on fuzzy logic. ICIS '08 Proceedings of the Seventh IEEEIACIS
International Conference on Computer and Information Science, pages
347 - 352, 2008 .
[9] Mohammed Salem Binwahlan, Naomie Salim, and Ladda Suanmali.
Fuzzy swarm based text summarization I , 2009.
[ 1 0] Mohsen Pourvali and Mohammad Saniee Abadeh. Automated text
summarization base on lexicales chain and graph using of wordnet and
wikipedia knowledge base. International Journal of Computer Science
Issues (IJCSI), 9:343, 20 12.
[ I I ] G. A. Miller, R. Beckwith, C. Fellbaum, D. Gross, and K. J. Miller.
Introduction to WordNet: an on-line lexical database. International
Journal of Lexicography, 3(4):235-244, 1 990.
[ 1 2] Christiane Fellbaum, editor. WordNet.· an electronic lexical database.
MIT Press, 1998.
[ 1 3] Desmond Darma Putra, Abdul Arfan, and Ruli Manurung. Building an
indonesian word net, 2008 .
[ 1 4] Gunawan and Andy Saputra. Building synsets for indonesian wordnet
with monolingual lexical resources. In Minghui Dong, Guodong Zhou,
Haoliang Qi, and Min Zhang, editors, International Conference on Asian
Language Processing, IALP 201 0, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China, 28-30
December 2010, pages 297-300. IEEE Computer Society, 20 1 0 .
[ 1 5] ChukFong Ho, Masrah Azrifah Azmi Murad, Rabiah Abdul Kadir, and
Shyamala C. Doraisamy. Word sense disambiguation-based sentence
similarity. In Chu-Ren Huang and Dan Jurafsky, editors, COLING
(Posters), pages 4 1 8-426. Chinese Information Processing Society of
China, 20 1 0 .
[ 1 6] Palakom Achananuparp, Xiaohua Hu, and Xiajiong Shen. The eval­
uation of sentence similarity measures. DaWaK '08 Proceedings of
the 1 0th international conference on Data Warehousing and Knowledge
Discovery, pages 305 - 3 1 6, 2008.
[ 1 7] Yuhua Li, David Mclean, Zuhair B, James D. O'shea, Keeley Crockett,
James OSShea, Zuhair Bandar, and Keeley Crockett. Sentence similarity
based on semantic nets and corpus statistics. IEEE Transactions on
Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1 8: 1 1 38-1 1 50, 2006.
[ 1 8] Aristoteles, Yeni Hendriyeni, Ahmad Ridha, and Julio Adisantoso. Text
feature weighting for summarization of documents in bahasa indonesia
using genetic algorithm. International Journal of Computer Science
Issues, 9: 1 , 20 12.
[ 1 9] Gregorius S . Budhi, Rolly Intan, Silvia R, and Stevanus R.R. Indonesian
automated text summarization. Master's thesis, Petra Christian Univer­
sity, Information Engineering Dept, 2009 .
[20] Peter F. Brown, Peter Y. deSouza, Robert L. Mercer, Vincent J. Della
Pietra, and Jenifer C. Lai. Class-based n-gram models of natural
language. Computational Linguistics, 1 8:467-479, 1 992.
[2 1 ] Jelita Asian, Hugh E. Williams, and S. M. M. Tahaghoghi. Stemming
indonesian, 2005.
[22] Mirna Adriani, Bobby Nazief, S . M.M. Tahaghoghi, and Hugh E.
Williams. Stemming indonesian: A confix-stripping approach. ACM
Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, 6, 2007 .