MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295308551 · doi:10.1109/tai.2022.3205567

DReD–A Descriptive Relation Dataset for Expanding Relation Extraction

2022· article· en· W4295308551 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelationship extractionComputer scienceRelation (database)Benchmark (surveying)SentenceNatural language processingTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceCode (set theory)Set (abstract data type)Information retrievalData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relation extraction is a fundamental topic in document information extraction. Traditionally, datasets for relation extraction have been annotated with named entities and classified with a subset of relation categories. Models then predict either the entities and relations (end-to-end) or assume the entities are given and only classify the relations. However, current approaches are limited by datasets with a narrow definition of entities and relations. We seek to remedy this by introducing our Descriptive Relation Dataset (DReD), which contains 3286 annotations for descriptions of relations between more general noun phrases inspired by linguistic theory. We benchmark our dataset using several seq2seq models and find that T5 achieves the best results with a ROUGE-1 score of 75.5. We verify the usefulness of DreD by collecting feedback on 100 predictions and comparing human judgment to automated scoring methods. Finally, we verify that relations can be described accurately by transforming the CoNLL04 and Re-TACRED datasets and mapping sentence templates to relation categories. T5 achieves competitive accuracy on CoNLL-04 and Re-TACRED with an F1 score of 78.6 and 90.4, respectively. With this article, we prove that relations can be described, therefore overcoming the limitations set by previous datasets and approaches. We publicly provide our dataset and training code at <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/logan-markewich/DReD</uri> . Relation extraction is a powerful task, providing a method to extract labeled connections between words in a document. Existing datasets focus on relations between important named entities, with relations sourced from a list of predefined categories. These categories create limitations for trained models, missing important context that a category name cannot capture alone. Our new Descriptive Relation Dataset, DReD, overcomes these limitations by providing a dataset that allows models to learn how to describe relations in a sentence. DReD contains 3286 annotations of descriptions of relations between general noun phrases, removing the previously stated limitations and providing a way to uncover previously unseen relation types while providing meaningful context. Furthermore, any sequence-to-sequence model can be easily trained on DReD, allowing for flexible and future-proof applications.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it