Zero-Shot End-to-End Relation Extraction in Chinese: A Comparative Study of Gemini, LLaMA, and ChatGPT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the performance of various large language models (LLMs) on zero-shot end-to-end relation extraction (RE) in Chinese, a task that integrates entity recognition and relation extraction without requiring annotated data. While LLMs show promise for RE, most prior work focuses on English or assumes pre-annotated entities, leaving their effectiveness in Chinese RE largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we evaluate ChatGPT, Gemini, and LLaMA based on accuracy, efficiency, and adaptability. ChatGPT demonstrates the highest overall performance, balancing precision and recall, while Gemini achieves the fastest inference speed, making it suitable for real-time applications. LLaMA underperforms in both accuracy and latency, highlighting the need for further adaptation. Our findings provide insights into the strengths and limitations of LLMs for zero-shot Chinese RE, shedding light on trade-offs between accuracy and efficiency. This study serves as a foundation for future research aimed at improving LLM adaptability to complex linguistic tasks in Chinese NLP.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".