Database Entity Recognition with Data Augmentation and Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the challenge of Database Entity Recognition (DB-ER) in Natural Language Queries (NLQ). We present several key contributions to advance this field: (1) a human-annotated benchmark for DB-ER task, derived from popular text-to-sql benchmarks [6], [11], (2) a novel data augmentation procedure that leverages automatic annotation of NLQs based on the corresponding SQL queries which are available in popular text-to-SQL benchmarks, (3) a specialized language model based entity recognition model using T5 as a backbone and two down-stream DB-ER tasks: sequence tagging and token classification for fine-tuning of backend and performing DB-ER respectively. We compared our DB-ER tagger with two state-of-the-art NER taggers, and observed better performance in both precision and recall for our model. The ablation evaluation shows that data augmentation boosts precision and recall by over 10 %, while fine-tuning of the$\text{T 5}$backbone boosts these metrics by$5-10 \%$.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".