HardEval: Focusing on Challenging Tokens to Assess Robustness of NER.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the robustness of NER systems, we propose an evaluation method that focuses on subsets of tokens that represent specific sources of errors: unknown words and label shift or ambiguity. These subsets provide a system-agnostic basis for evaluating specific sources of NER errors and assessing room for improvement in terms of robustness. We analyze these subsets of challenging tokens in two widely-used NER benchmarks, then exploit them to evaluate NER systems in both in-domain and out-of-domain settings. Results show that these challenging tokens explain the majority of errors made by modern NER systems, although they represent only a small fraction of test tokens. They also indicate that label shift is harder to deal with than unknown words, and that there is much more room for improvement than the standard NER evaluation procedure would suggest. We hope this work will encourage NLP researchers to adopt rigorous and meaningful evaluation methods, and will help them develop more robust models.
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 | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".