GUM-SAGE: A Novel Dataset and Approach for Graded Entity Salience Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining and ranking the most salient entities in a text is critical for user-facing systems, especially as users increasingly rely on models to interpret long documents they only partially read.Graded entity salience addresses this need by assigning entities scores that reflect their relative importance in a text.Existing approaches fall into two main categories: subjective judgments of salience, which allow for gradient scoring but lack consistency, and summarization-based methods, which define salience as mention-worthiness in a summary, promoting explainability but limiting outputs to binary labels (entities are either summaryworthy or not).In this paper, we introduce a novel approach for graded entity salience that combines the strengths of both approaches.Using an English dataset spanning 12 spoken and written genres, we collect 5 summaries per document and calculate each entity's salience score based on its presence across these summaries.Our approach shows stronger correlation with scores based on human summaries and alignments, and outperforms existing techniques, including LLMs.We release our data and code at https://github. com/jl908069/gum_sum_salience 1 to support further research on graded salient entity extraction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".