DTCRS: Dynamic Tree Construction for Recursive Summarization
Organizations: School of Informatics, Xiamen University
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates the hallucination problem of Large Language Models (LLMs) by incorporating external knowledge. Recursive summarization constructs a hierarchical summary tree by clustering text chunks, integrating information from multiple parts of a document to provide evidence for abstractive questions involving multi-step reasoning. However, summary trees often contain a large number of redundant summary nodes, which not only increase construction time but may also negatively impact question answering. Moreover, recursive summarization is not suitable for all types of questions. We introduce DTCRS, a method that dynamically generates summary trees based on document structure and query semantics. DTCRS determines whether a summary tree is necessary by analyzing the question type. It then decomposes the question and uses the embeddings of sub-questions as initial cluster centers, reducing redundant summaries while improving the relevance between summaries and the question. Our approach significantly reduces summary tree construction time and achieves substantial improvements across three QA tasks. Additionally, we investigate the applicability of recursive summarization to different question types, providing valuable insights for future research.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Number of Questions | Average Document Characters |
| QASPER | 1451 | 21,889.87 |
| QuALITY | 2128 | 24,723.06 |
| NarrativeQA | 10,558 | 332,133.92 |
| Type | Number |
| Extractive | 501 (34.53%) |
| Abstractive | 513 (35.35%) |
| Boolean | 239 (16.47%) |
| Unanswerable | 198 (13.65%) |
| Model | F1 |
| DPR + GPT-4 | 51.3 |
| LongT5 XL | 53.1 |
| CoLT5 XL | 53.9 |
| RAPTOR + GPT-4 | 55.7 |
| DTCRS + GPT-4 | 58.5 |
| Model | Accuracy | SAT-style Score | ||
| Test Set | Hard Subset | Test Set | Hard Subset | |
| Longformer-base | 30.7 | 29.3 | 7.6 | 5.7 |
| DPR + DeBERTaV3-large | 55.4 | 46.1 | 40.5 | 28.1 |
| CoLISA + DeBERTaV3-large | 62.3 | 54.7 | 49.7 | 39.6 |
| DPR + GPT-4o-mini | 62.8 | 50.3 | 52 | 35.9 |
| RAPTOR + GPT-4o-mini | 67.6 | 57 | 59 | 44.9 |
| Model | ROUGE-L | BLEU-1 | BLEU-4 | METEOR |
| BiDAF | 6.2 | 5.7 | 0.3 | 3.7 |
| BM25 + BERT | 15.5 | 14.5 | 1.4 | 5.0 |
| Recursively Summarizing Books | 21.6 | 22.3 | 4.2 | 10.6 |
| DPR + GPT-4o-mini | 26.5 | 21.5 | 1.3 | 14.2 |
| RAPTOR + GPT-4o-mini | 25.0 | 21.2 | 1.1 | 14.1 |
| Retriever + Reader | 32.0 | 35.3 | 7.5 | 11.1 |
| Model | Total | Extractive | Abstractive | Boolean | ||||
| GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | |
| DPR | 33.0 | 31.3 | 29.6 | 25.7 | 13.0 | 13.9 | 86.3 | 85.4 |
| w/o global | 43.8 | 38.6 | 40.4 | 32.4 | 23.5 | 21.0 | 86.2 | 86.2 |
| w/o classify | 37.2 | 33.7 | 28.0 | 24.0 | 22.9 | 20.2 | 90.1 | 87.4 |
| w/o contents | 44.1 | 38.1 | 40.5 | 32.1 | 22.7 | 20.6 | 87.3 | 84.1 |
| DTCRS | 44.5 | 38.3 | 41.3 | 32.5 | 23.6 | 21.1 | 88.2 | 85.3 |
| Variant | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2-Lite-Chat |
| DPR | 33.0 | 31.3 |
| w/o global | 43.8 | 38.6 |
| w/o classifier | 37.2 | 33.7 |
| w/o ToC | 44.1 | 38.1 |
| w/o question decomposer | 37.5 | 32.9 |
| DTCRS | 44.5 | 38.3 |
| Layer | Average Number of Nodes | Evidence Node Coverage | ||
| DTCRS | RAPTOR | DTCRS | RAPTOR | |
| 0 (leaf) | 252 | 252 | 75.39% | 70.83% |
| 1 | 3.96 | 54 | 19.84% | 20.83% |
| 2 | 1.03 | 10 | 3.96% | 8.33% |
| Method | Nodes | Time (s) |
| DTCRS | 4.99 | 40.82 |
| RAPTOR | 64.00 | 214.39 |
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Total | Extractive | Abstractive | Boolean | ||||
| GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | |
| DPR | 33.0 | 31.3 | 29.6 | 25.7 | 13.0 | 13.9 | 86.3 | 85.4 |
| RAPTOR | 34.5 | 34.6 | 24.4 | 23.6 | 17.2 | 17.7 | 87.2 | 86.8 |
| w/o global | 43.8 | 38.6 | 40.4 | 32.4 | 23.5 | 21.0 | 86.2 | 86.2 |
| w/o classify | 37.2 | 33.7 | 28.0 | 24.0 | 22.9 | 20.2 | 90.1 | 87.4 |
| w/o contents | 44.1 | 38.1 | 40.5 | 32.1 | 22.7 | 20.6 | 87.3 | 84.1 |
| Model | ROUGE-L | BLEU-1 | BLEU-4 | METEOR | ||||
| GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | GPT-4o-mini | DeepSeek-V2- Lite-Chat | |
| DPR | 26.5 | 21.3 | 21.4 | 15.2 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 14.4 | 15.0 |
| RAPTOR | 25.0 | 25.4 | 21.2 | 17.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 14.1 | 18.3 |
| w/o global | 26.9 | 27.9 | 21.5 | 18.9 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 14.7 | 19.7 |
| w/o classify | 26.2 | 25.3 | 21.4 | 17.3 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 15.1 | 17.7 |
| w/o contents | 26.7 | 21.4 | 21.4 | 15.2 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 14.3 | 15.2 |
| Question | How do they show genetic relationships between languages? | |
| Reference Answer | By doing hierarchical clustering of word vectors | |
| Method | Predicted Answer | Predicted Evidence |
| RAPTOR | The researchers show genetic relationships between languages by analyzing the hierarchical clustering of language vectors. In particular, they present a subset of Germanic languages in a figure (fig:germanic), where the clustering closely mirrors the established genetic relationships within the Germanic language family. This suggests that the language vectors, while not explicitly designed to detect genealogical relationships, capture meaningful linguistic similarities, reflecting genetic relationships within the language family. However, the model struggles with more distant relationships, such as connecting Germanic languages to Celtic languages, indicating that the model is more successful at capturing closer, more evident linguistic relationships. Therefore, the genetic relationships between languages are demonstrated through clustering, where the model’s learned language vectors show a strong correlation with known language family trees, like those of the Germanic languages. | However, our purpose is not to detect genealogical relationships… The only supervision… is a language identifier as a one-hot encoding In this paper, we examine a language model that utilizes a predictive distribution… Our focus is on investigating the implications of moving beyond the training corpus’s language points By means of cross-entropy… Figure FIGREF12 plots the interpolation results… The project aims to address challenges in data-driven language modeling… Previous work by Ammar et al. (2016) employed one-hot The research focuses on developing… distinguishing it from previous studies, such as Johnson et al. (2016) … |
| DTCRS | Hierarchical clustering of language vectors. | However, our purpose is not to detect genealogical relationships… The only supervision… is a language identifier as a one-hot encoding By means of cross-entropy… Figure FIGREF12 plots the interpolation results… In the figure English is (weakly) grouped with the West Germanic languages… Generating Text: Since our language model is conditioned on a language vector… |
| Process Step | Temperature |
| Question Type Classification | 0 |
| Table of Contents Generation | 0 |
| Question Decomposition | 0 |
| Question Answering | 0 |
| Summary Generation | 0.3 |
| n_neighbors | dim | Predicted F1 Score |
| 10 | 10 | 58.5 |
| 50 | 10 | 56.3 |
| 50 | 50 | 60.0 |
| 100 | 100 | 60.8 |
| Parameter | Value |
| max_n | 4 |
| limit_length | True |
| length_limit | 100 |
| length_limit_type | words |
| apply_avg | True |
| apply_best | True |
Text Summarization
Text summarization develops methods for condensing documents while preserving the information, perspective, and evidence readers need.
See all 142 papers