Leveraging Multi-Token Entities in Document-Level Named Entity Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most state-of-the-art named entity recognition systems are designed to process each sentence within a document independently. These systems are easy to confuse entity types when the context information in a sentence is not sufficient enough. To utilize the context information within the whole document, most document-level work let neural networks on their own to learn the relation across sentences, which is not intuitive enough for us humans. In this paper, we divide entities to multi-token entities that contain multiple tokens and single-token entities that are composed of a single token. We propose that the context information of multi-token entities should be more reliable in document-level NER for news articles. We design a fusion attention mechanism which not only learns the semantic relevance between occurrences of the same token, but also focuses more on occurrences belonging to multi-tokens entities. To identify multi-token entities, we design an auxiliary task namely ‘Multi-token Entity Classification’ and perform this task simultaneously with document-level NER. This auxiliary task is simplified from NER and doesn't require extra annotation. Experimental results on the CoNLL-2003 dataset and OntoNotesnbm dataset show that our model outperforms state-of-the-art sentence-level and document-level NER methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".