PRIMERA: Pyramid-based Masked Sentence Pre-training for Multi-document Summarization — part 6/6

Cleaned-text code points [67696, 80935). Bibliography omitted here; source.md includes it.

Model Summaries
PRIMERA -0 BALTIMORE (AP) — The U.S. Coast Guard says it’s looking for a man who has cost the service about $500,000 after responding
to nearly 30 of his fake distress calls.. The Coast Guard also said such false distress alerts detract from their ability to respond to
actual alerts.Anyone with information about the caller is asked to contact the Coast Guard’s regional command center at 410-576-
2525 or email investigators at CGIS-Baltimore@uscg.mil..
PRIMERA -10 The U.S. Coast Guard says it’s looking for a man who has cost the service about $500,000 after responding to nearly 30 of his
fake distress calls. In a press release published Friday, the Coast Guard says the 28 calls have originated from around the area of
Annapolis, Maryland. Each call involved the same male voice and used an emergency radio channel. The two most recent calls
were made on the night of July 21 and the early morning of July 22. The Coast Guard also says hoax calls distract rescuers from
real emergencies, putting both the public and the responding crews at risk. "Calls like these not only put our crews at risk, but they
put the lives of the public at risk," said Lt. Cmdr. Sara Wallace, who heads the response sector in Maryland. "Calls like these not
only put our crews at risk, but they put the lives of the public at risk." Anyone with information about the caller is asked to contact
the Coast Guard’s regional command center at 410-576-2525 or email investigators at CGIS-Baltimore@uscg.mil.
PRIMERA -100 The US Coast Guard is looking for a man who has cost the service about $500,000 after making 28 false distress calls from
Maryland. The 28 calls have involved the same male voice and used an emergency radio channel, the AP reports. The Coast Guard
says it has responded to nearly 30 of the fake calls and that the estimated cost of the responses is $500,000. The caller has been
making the calls since July 2014. He could be facing a six-year prison sentence, a $10,000 civil fine, and a $250,000 criminal
fine, the AP reports. "A hoax call is a deadly and serious offense," says Lt. Cmdr. Sara Wallace, head of the response sector in
Maryland. "Calls like these not only put our crews at risk, but they put the lives of the public at risk."
PEGASUS -100 The US Coast Guard has responded to 28 false distress calls in two years—and it’s a man who’s been making the calls, not the
waves. The unidentified caller has made the calls in Annapolis, Maryland, since July 2014, the Coast Guard reports. Each call
involved the same male voice and used an emergency radio channel. The two most recent calls were made on the night of July
21 and early morning of July 22. The Coast Guard says the calls were made in the hope that the public would get into the water.
Rather than responding to actual alerts, the calls were made to divert the attention of rescue crews from real emergencies, the AP
reports. The Coast Guard says the cost of the responses to these false alarms is about $500,000. The caller made 28 false distress
alerts from Annapolis, Maryland, beginning in July 2014, according to the Coast Guard. The estimated cost of the responses to
these false alarms is $500,000. The Coast Guard says the calls were made in the hope that the public would get into the water.
Rather than responding to actual alerts, the calls were made to divert the attention of rescue crews from real emergencies, the AP
reports.
Fully Supervised The US Coast Guard says it’s looking for a man who has cost the service about $500,000 after responding to nearly 30 of his fake
distress calls, the AP reports. In a press release published Friday, the Coast Guard says the 28 calls have originated from around the
area of Annapolis, Maryland. Each call involved the same male voice and used an emergency radio channel. The two most recent
calls were made on the night of July 21 and the early morning of July 22. The Coast Guard also says hoax calls distract rescuers
from real emergencies, putting both the public and the responding crews at risk. "A hoax call is a deadly and serious offense," says
Lt. Cmdr. Sara Wallace, who heads the response sector in Maryland. "Calls like these not only put our crews at risk, but they put
the lives of the public at risk." Making false distress calls is a felony, punishable by a maximum of six years in prison, a $10,000
civil fine, $250,000 criminal fine, and a reimbursement to the Coast Guard for their efforts, the Coast Guard says.
Ground Truth The US Coast Guard says it’s looking for a man who has cost the service about $500,000 after responding to nearly 30 of his fake
distress calls, reports the AP. In a press release published Friday, the Coast Guard says the 28 calls have originated from around
the area of Annapolis, Maryland. Each call involved the same male voice and used an emergency radio channel. He’s been making
the calls since July 2014. The two most recent calls were made on the night of July 21 and the early morning of July 22. “A hoax
call is a deadly and serious offense,” a Coast Guard rep tells NBC4, which notes that such calls are a felony that carry six years in
prison, $10,000 civil fine, $250,000 criminal fine, and reimbursement to the Coast Guard. "Calls like these not only put our crews
at risk, but they put the lives of the public at risk.”
Table 13: Generated summaries from PRIMERA and best baseline model (according ROUGE score on this example)
trained with different number of training examples. The data used here is the #10 in the test set of Multi-News
dataset on Huggingface.
5262

Model Summaries
PEGASUS In 1996, Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act, which gave the president the power to cut individual projects from tax and
spending bills without vetoing the entire legislation. The act was followed by the President’s line-item veto, which he used to
trim 144 million dollars from a 248 billion dollars defense spending bill. He also used the veto power to block a congressional
rejection of his line-item veto on 38 military construction projects. The bill was passed by the House and the President signed
it into law. The veto was challenged by members of both parties who said it was unconstitutional because it gave the president
unchecked power to rewrite legislation. The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear argument and decide the constitutionality of
the president line-item veto. In 1998 the President used his line-item veto to cut $38 million from a military construction bill. In
1999 the President used his line-item veto to cut $54 million from a military spending bill. In 2000 the President used his line-item
veto to cut $54 million from a defense spending bill. In January the President vetoed a tax and spending bill, which gave him
the power to cut individual projects from tax and spending bills without vetoing the entire legislation. In February the President
vetoed a spending bill, which gave him the power to cut individual projects from tax and spending bills without vetoing the entire
legislation. In September the President used his line-item veto to cut $54 million from a defense spending bill. The bill was rejected
by the House and the President vetoed it. In November the President used his line-item veto to trim 144 million dollars from a
defense spending bill.
LED In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, giving the president the power to delete individual items
of spending and tax bills. Clinton used the power to cut individual projects from tax and spending bills. In February 1999, the
President Clinton vetoed a congressional rejection of his line-item veto on 38 military construction projects. In May 1999, the
President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut individual items of spending and tax breaks. In 2000, the President Clinton used
the line-item veto to cancel individual items of spending and tax breaks. In May 2000, the President Clinton threatened to use the
line-item veto to cancel all military spending and tax breaks. In June 2000, the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut
individual items of spending and tax breaks. In August 2000, the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut individual items
of spending and tax breaks. In September 2000, the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut individual items of spending
and tax breaks. In 2000, the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut individual items of spending and tax breaks. In 2001,
the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut individual items of spending and tax breaks. In June 2000, the President Clinton
used the line-item veto to cut individual items of spending and tax breaks. In August 2000, the President Clinton used the line-item
veto to cut individual items of spending and tax breaks. In September 2000, the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut
individual items of spending and tax breaks. In 2000, the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cancel individual items of
spending and tax breaks. In 2001, the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut individual items of spending and tax breaks.
In June 2000, the President Clinton used the line-item veto to cut individual items of spending and tax breaks.
PRIMERA In 1996, Congress gave the President the power to veto specific items of tax and spending bills. Before the law’s enactment in
1996, the president could veto an entire spending measure but not individual items. The court ruled that such a specialized veto
can be authorized only through a constitutional amendment. In January 1997, the line-item veto law was passed. It was passed
under the Republican Party’s "Contract with Congress". It was passed after President Clinton vetoed thirteen relatively obscure
research and spending programs, almost all of the military spending increases approved by Congress. In October 1998, Clinton
used his line-item veto authority to have trimmed 144 million U.S. dollars from a 248 billion defense spending bill. In November
1998, Clinton vetoed 38 military construction projects, worth 287 million U.S. dollars. In February 1999, the Justice Department
appealed the line-item veto law to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear argument and decide the constitutionality of the law.
Earlier this month, a federal judge struck down the line-item veto law as unconstitutional. The highest court’s review will yield
a momentous balance of powers ruling. The case is scheduled to be argued before the justices on April 27. The line item veto,
strongly supported by President Bill Clinton and a number of his predecessors, was passed in 1996 under the Republican Party’s
"Contract with Congress". It was passed in January 1997. Before the law’s enactment, the only way presidents could reject
spending laws was to veto whole budget bills. In 1996, Congress gave the president the power to cancel individual items in tax
and spending bills. In January 1997, the line-item veto law was passed. It was passed under the Republican Party’s "Contract with
Congress". It was passed in January 1997. In 1998, President Clinton threatened to veto some items of the military construction
bill because of the increased funding. In November 1998, Clinton used his line-item veto power to delete 38 projects in 24 states
worth 287 million U.S. dollars. In February 1999, the Justice Department appealed the line-item veto law to the Supreme Court,
which agreed to hear a case about its constitutionality.
Ground Truth In 1996 a Republican congress overwhelmingly passed a Line Item Veto Act allowing presidents (including the incumbent Demo-
cratic president), to strike individual tax or spending items within 5 days after signing a bill into law. Congress could restore those
items in a new bill passed by majority vote. If the president vetoed that bill, Congress could override that veto with a two-thirds
majority. Proponents argued that the law preserved the integrity of federal spending, saved billions of dollars, and that it did not
repeal any portion of a law, but was simply a delegated spending authorization from Congress. In January 1997, the first year of
the law, the president vetoed 163 line-items in six bills, and in 1998 82 line-items in 11 bills. In October 1997 Congress overrode
the president’s line-item veto against 36 of 38 military construction projects. Initial 1997 efforts by congressmen to challenge the
law in the Supreme Court were rejected due to lack of standing. On June 25, 1998 after lower courts rejected the Line Item Veto
Act as unconstitutional, on appeal by the White House the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Congress unconstitutionally violated the
principle of separation of powers, because that procedure allows the president to create a law that was not voted on by either house
of Congress in violation of the Constitution’s Article I "presentment" clause. A constitutional amendment would be required to
institute line item vetoes. Justices Breyer and Scalia argued similar dissenting opinions that separation of powers was not violated.
Table 14: Generated summaries from PRIMERA , PEGASUS and LED trained with 10 training examples, along with
one (out of four) ground-truth summary. The data used here is D0730 in DUC2007.
5263