Unified Lattice Graph Fusion for Chinese Named Entity Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating lexicon into character-level sequence has been proven effective to leverage word boundary and semantic information in Chinese named entity recognition (NER). However, prior approaches usually utilize feature weighting and position coupling to integrate word information, but ignore the semantic and contextual correspondence between the fine-grained semantic units in the character-word space. To solve this issue, we propose a Unified Lattice Graph Fusion (ULGF) approach for Chinese NER. ULGF can explicitly capture various semantic and boundary relations across different semantic units with the adjacency matrix by converting the lattice structure into a unified graph. We stack multiple graph-based intra-source self-attention and inter-source cross-gating fusion layers that iteratively carry out semantic interactions to learn node representations. To alleviate the over-reliance on word information, we further propose to leverage lexicon entity classification as an auxiliary task. Experiments on four Chinese NER benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of our ULGF approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".