Recent Advances in Named Entity Recognition: A Comprehensive Survey and Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Named Entity Recognition seeks to extract substrings within a text that name real-world objects and to determine their type (for example, whether they refer to persons or organizations). In this survey, we first present an overview of recent popular approaches, including advancements in Transformer-based methods and Large Language Models (LLMs) that have not had much coverage in other surveys. In addition, we discuss reinforcement learning and graph-based approaches, highlighting their role in enhancing NER performance. Second, we focus on methods designed for datasets with scarce annotations. Third, we evaluate the performance of the main NER implementations on a variety of datasets with differing characteristics (as regards their domain, their size, and their number of classes). We thus provide a deep comparison of algorithms that have never been considered together. Our experiments shed some light on how the characteristics of datasets affect the behavior of the methods we compare.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".