A sequence-to-sequence approach for document-level relation extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by the fact that many relations cross the sentence boundary, there has been increasing interest in document-level relation extraction (DocRE). DocRE requires integrating information within and across sentences, capturing complex interactions between mentions of entities. Most existing methods are pipelinebased, requiring entities as input. However, jointly learning to extract entities and relations can improve performance and be more efficient due to shared parameters and training steps. In this paper, we develop a sequence-tosequence approach, seq2rel, that can learn the subtasks of DocRE (entity extraction, coreference resolution and relation extraction) end-toend, replacing a pipeline of task-specific components. Using a simple strategy we call entity hinting, we compare our approach to existing pipeline-based methods on several popular biomedical datasets, in some cases exceeding their performance. We also report the first end-to-end results on these datasets for future comparison. Finally, we demonstrate that, under our model, an end-to-end approach outperforms a pipeline-based approach. Our code, data and trained models are available at https:
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
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".