Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Named Entity Recognition Only from Word Embeddings

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A word-embedding-only pipeline recognizes named entities with no annotated data, no lexicon, and no knowledge base, yielding F1 of 68.64 on English and 54.31 on Spanish.

desk verdict A genuinely unsupervised NER pipeline that gets real signal from embeddings alone, but the cluster-to-type mapping for evaluation is underspecified and may turn the headline F1 into an upper bound rather than a deployable score. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00164 v2 pith:E5RSCF57 submitted 2019-08-31 cs.IR cs.CL

Ying Luo , Hai Zhao , Junlang Zhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.CL
keywords namedentityrecognitionunsupervisedlearningwordembeddingsGaussianhiddenMarkovmodeldeepautoencodingmixturereinforcementIOBtaggingdistantsupervision
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that named entity recognition can be bootstrapped from pre-trained word embeddings alone, with no human-annotated data, no entity dictionary, and no external knowledge base. Its pipeline first splits the embedding vocabulary into a small likely-entity cluster and a large ordinary-word cluster, uses a Gaussian Hidden Markov Model over IOB tags to find mention boundaries, and then uses a deep autoencoding Gaussian mixture model to sort mentions into coarse types. A BiLSTM-CRF tagger trained on those noisy labels is cleaned up by a reinforcement-learning instance selector that keeps high-confidence sentences and relabels the rest. The reported F1 is 68.64 on the English benchmark and 54.31 on the Spanish benchmark, which the authors position as the first fully unsupervised result on these datasets and as a more robust alternative than distant supervision with generic lexicons.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a coarse two-cluster K-Means over the entire word-embedding vocabulary, whose smaller cluster is treated as a crude named-entity dictionary (tag 1) and whose larger cluster is treated as ordinary words (tag 0). This cluster signal initializes a Gaussian Hidden Markov Model whose latent states are IOB tags, short for inside, outside, and beginning tags of entity spans, and whose emissions are multivariate Gaussian densities over word embeddings; the HMM absorbs the cluster clue and converts it into mention boundaries. Candidate mentions are encoded by concatenating boundary and averaged internal embeddings and handed to DAGMM, a deep autoencoding Gaussian mixture model that sorts mentions into K unlabeled types by density in a low-dimensional space. Finally, a BiLSTM-CRF tagger and a reinforcement-learning instance selector clean the noise by repeatedly selecting confident sentences and relabeling the rest.

What would settle it

Take a text domain where entities are not a small, separable cluster of the embedding space, such as a corpus full of product names or lowercase informal text, run only the K-Means initialization, and measure the precision and recall of the smaller cluster against gold entity mentions; if that cluster is near chance, the Gaussian-HMM cannot recover and the full pipeline should collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fully unsupervised named entity recognition model can be built with pre-trained word embeddings as the unique feature source. The construction separates span detection from type prediction: a two-cluster K-Means over the embedding vocabulary labels likely-entity words and ordinary words, a Gaussian-HMM with latent IOB states converts these cluster clues into entity spans, and DAGMM, a deep autoencoder plus Gaussian mixture estimator, assigns candidate mentions to unlabeled types that are matched to PER, LOC, ORG, and MISC only for evaluation. A BiLSTM-CRF tagger is then trained on the resulting noisy labels, and a reinforcement-learning instance selector iteratively chooses cleaner sentences, relabels rejected ones, and refines the tagger. The authors report that this procedure reaches an F1 of 68.64 on CoNLL-2003 English and 54.31 on CoNLL-2002 Spanish without any annotated lexicon or corpus.

Load-bearing premise

The whole cascade depends on the assumption that a single two-cluster K-Means over word embeddings separates named entities from ordinary words well enough for the smaller cluster to serve as a reliable coarse NE dictionary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any language or domain with unlabeled text and pretrained embeddings, an NER tagger can be created without annotation effort, with the main cost being pipeline tuning rather than data collection.
  • The auto-generated labels from clustering, Gaussian-HMM, and DAGMM are good enough to train a neural tagger, and reinforcement-learning selection lifts F1 from 65.94 to 68.64 on English and from 53.16 to 54.31 on Spanish.
  • The model works best on LOC, ORG, and PER, whose embeddings form coherent neighborhoods, while MISC is systematically harder because it groups heterogeneous mentions together.
  • Adding contextualized language-model embeddings at the refinement stage produces further gains, reported as 69.99 on English and 56.66 on Spanish, suggesting that the bottleneck is the initial coarse dictionary rather than the neural tagger.
  • The method is more stable than distant supervision when the external lexicon is generic rather than domain-matched, because it does not depend on the quality or coverage of any hand-built dictionary.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the two-cluster K-Means initialization could be relaxed into a soft or multi-cluster assignment: entities of different types may not lie in a single compact cluster, and iterating between clustering and the HMM could reduce sensitivity to the initial K=2 split.
  • A natural testable extension would be to apply the same pipeline to a low-resource language that has no supervised NER benchmark, using only embeddings trained on Wikipedia or web text, and measure whether span and type quality degrade gracefully as the embedding distribution moves away from news articles.
  • Because the reinforcement-learning selector rewards sentences that the tagger already labels confidently, the method may be vulnerable to a self-confirmation loop; a cheap diagnostic would be to hold out a small labeled set and compare the accuracy of selected versus unselected sentences after each round.
  • The reported gains from contextualized embeddings suggest that the pipeline could be re-run with a low-dimensional projection of a language model as the Gaussian-HMM input, rather than only appending the language model at the refinement stage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a fully unsupervised named entity recognition (NER) system whose only input is pre-trained word embeddings. The pipeline first applies two-cluster K-Means to the embedding vocabulary to obtain a coarse NE/non-NE dictionary, then uses a Gaussian Hidden Markov Model to predict entity spans under an IOB scheme, then feeds candidate spans to a Deep Autoencoding Gaussian Mixture Model (DAGMM) to cluster them into entity types. A BiLSTM-CRF tagger is subsequently trained on the resulting noisy labels and refined with an RL-based instance selector. Experiments on CoNLL-2003 English and CoNLL-2002 Spanish report F1 scores of 68.64 and 54.31, respectively, which the paper presents as state of the art for unsupervised NER without external resources, and it claims to be the first fully unsupervised NER model with no annotation data or external knowledge bases.

Significance. If the results hold, the contribution is substantial: it demonstrates that a practical NER system can be built from word embeddings alone, without annotated data or external lexicons. The architecture is original in its combination of Gaussian-HMM for span detection, DAGMM for type clustering, and RL-based refinement, and the authors release code, which supports reproducibility. The span-detection improvement quantified in Table 4 is a genuine strength: Gaussian-HMM raises span F1 from 0.47 to 0.76 on English and from 0.39 to 0.63 on Spanish, showing that the cascade tolerates a weak initial clustering. However, the evaluation protocol for assigning type names to clusters and the validation of the RL selector are not fully specified, and the headline F1 numbers cannot be fully assessed until these points are clarified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Table 1] The cluster-to-type mapping used for evaluation is not specified. The text states only that "we use matching to determine the corresponding entity category of each class, just for evaluation" and cites Lin et al. (2015). In POS-induction work, such matching is usually a test-set permutation search that reports the best F1 over all label assignments. If the same procedure is used here, the reported 68.64 and 54.31 are upper bounds over cluster label permutations, not the performance of a system that actually outputs type names, and the comparison with supervised systems in Table 1 is not apples-to-apples. Please specify the matching protocol (fixed mapping, held-out mapping, or test-set permutation), report results under a fixed arbitrary labeling, and, if test-set matching was used, clearly label the numbers as cluster-evaluation upper bounds or remove the direct comparison.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (17)] The RL reward is the average log-likelihood of selected sentences under the tagger that is trained on those same selected sentences. This objective can be increased by selecting sentences on which the tagger is already confident, without any guarantee of improved F1 on the gold benchmark. Since Table 1 attributes a gain from 65.94 to 68.64 (English) and 53.16 to 54.31 (Spanish) to the instance selector, the paper should include a control experiment, such as random sentence selection or training on all sentences for the same number of epochs, and should report reward against F1 on a development set. Without such a control, the RL component's contribution to the headline result is not established.
  3. [Section 4.1, Section 2.3] The number of DAGMM mixture components K is not stated explicitly, and no procedure for choosing it is reported. If K is set to 4 because the CoNLL datasets have four entity types, then the claim of being "fully unsupervised" is weakened, since the number of types is taken from the benchmark ontology. Please disclose how K was selected, report sensitivity to K, and discuss how a fully unsupervised system would determine the number of entity types on a new corpus.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (16)] In the definition of the policy A(s_j, a_j), the right-hand side uses "a_i" in one term; this should be "a_j" to match the action variable.
  2. [Table 3] The column header "PRR" appears to be a typo for "PER".
  3. [Section 4.4] The BERT-augmented results (69.99 for English and 56.66 for Spanish) are reported only in prose and do not appear in Table 1. They should be included in the table or explicitly separated as a supplementary experiment.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4)] The phrase-merging threshold T is described only as "the default value in word2vec"; please report the exact numerical value used in the experiments.
  5. [Table 5] The table heading says "Intance 1" and the caption contains "Example of of two instances"; both should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the unsupervised pipeline is self-contained; the post-hoc cluster-to-type matching affects only evaluation and does not feed back into the learned model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: K-Means, Gaussian-HMM, DAGMM, and the RL refinement are all trained without gold labels or any external NE resource, so the headline CoNLL results are not produced by fitting to the test labels. The cluster-to-type mapping is explicitly described as evaluation-only ("we use matching to determine the corresponding entity category of each class, just for evaluation") and does not alter any model parameter; even if the matching were a test-set permutation search, it would affect the reported F1 as an evaluation protocol but would not make the learned representation or tagger circular with respect to the benchmark. The self-training RL loop uses the tagger's own likelihood as reward, which is a bootstrapping mechanism rather than a reduction of the prediction to a fitted input. The self-citations to Luo et al. 2020 and Luo and Zhao 2020 appear only as related-work examples of supervised NER and are not load-bearing for the unsupervised claim. The only caveat is that the paper does not specify how the evaluation matching is computed; this is a reporting-completeness concern, not a circularity in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central claim rests on the assumption that distributional word embeddings separate entities from non-entities, and that Gaussian modeling is appropriate. The number of clusters and mixture components are set from knowledge of the benchmark. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of clusters in K-Means = 2
    Chosen because the paper assumes NEs are rare and the smaller cluster corresponds to NE. This assumption is the foundation of the coarse NE dictionary and is not derived from data.
  • Phrase merging threshold T = default from word2vec (not specified exactly)
    Used in Eq. (4) to determine high-quality phrases; the value is taken as a default from word2vec, not tuned on the benchmark.
  • Number of entity types K for DAGMM = 4
    Set to the number of types in CoNLL datasets (LOC, MISC, ORG, PER). In a truly unsupervised setting, this would be unknown.
  • DAGMM hyperparameters (hidden dims, lambda1, lambda2) = [75,15], 10, lambda1 and lambda2 unspecified
    Architecture choices that affect clustering quality; not justified from first principles.
  • RL learning rate and batch size = lr 0.015, N=10
    Standard choices from prior work; not analyzed for sensitivity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Word embeddings of named entities are separable from common words via two-cluster K-Means.
    Section 2.1: the smaller cluster is assumed to contain mostly NEs based on the rarity of NEs. This is a strong assumption; if embeddings do not separate them, the coarse dictionary and HMM degrade.
  • domain assumption Gaussian distribution of word embeddings for each IOB label.
    Section 2.2: Eq. (2) assumes multivariate Gaussian emissions. High-dimensional embeddings may be multimodal, making this assumption fragile.
  • domain assumption The number of entity types is known to be 4.
    Section 2.3: DAGMM uses K=4 mixture components based on the CoNLL type set; a truly unsupervised system would not know this.
  • domain assumption Reinforcement learning reward from tagger likelihood is a reliable signal for sentence quality.
    Section 3.2: Eq. (17) uses the NE tagger's average log-likelihood on selected sentences as reward. If the initial noisy annotations are biased, this can reinforce errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Named Entity Recognition Only from Word Embeddings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5RSCF57

@misc{pith2026190900164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Named Entity Recognition Only from Word Embeddings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5RSCF57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00164}
}
read the original abstract

Deep neural network models have helped named entity (NE) recognition achieve amazing performance without handcrafting features. However, existing systems require large amounts of human annotated training data. Efforts have been made to replace human annotations with external knowledge (e.g., NE dictionary, part-of-speech tags), while it is another challenge to obtain such effective resources. In this work, we propose a fully unsupervised NE recognition model which only needs to take informative clues from pre-trained word embeddings. We first apply Gaussian Hidden Markov Model and Deep Autoencoding Gaussian Mixture Model on word embeddings for entity span detection and type prediction, and then further design an instance selector based on reinforcement learning to distinguish positive sentences from noisy sentences and refine these coarse-grained annotations through neural networks. Extensive experiments on CoNLL benchmark datasets demonstrate that our proposed light NE recognition model achieves remarkable performance without using any annotated lexicon or corpus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the unsupervised NE recognition model. The left part is designed for entity span detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of the reinforcement learning model, which consists of two parts. The left instance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Michael Collins and Yoram Singer. 1999. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W99-0613 Unsupervised models for named entity classification . In 1999 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Ronan Collobert, Jason Weston, L \'e on Bottou, Michael Karlen, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Pavel Kuksa. 2011. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Journal of machine learning research

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Oren Etzioni, Michael Cafarella, Doug Downey, Ana-Maria Popescu, Tal Shaked, Stephen Soderland, Daniel S Weld, and Alexander Yates. 2005. Unsupervised named-entity extraction from the web: An experimental study. Artificial intelligence

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Li Zhao, Yang Yang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08013 Reinforcement learning for relation classification from noisy data . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Jason Fries, Sen Wu, Alex Ratner, and Christopher R \'e . 2017. Swellshark: A generative model for biomedical named entity recognition without labeled data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.06360

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Junxian He, Graham Neubig, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1160 Unsupervised learning of syntactic structure with invertible neural projections . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1292--1302

    doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1160 2018

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Wenqi He. 2017. Autoentity: automated entity detection from massive text corpora

    2017

  2. [10]

    Zhanming Jie, Pengjun Xie, Wei Lu, Ruixue Ding, and Linlin Li. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1079 Better modeling of incomplete annotations for named entity recognition . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Comput...

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Lafferty, Andrew Mccallum, and Fernando C

    John D. Lafferty, Andrew Mccallum, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2001

  4. [12]

    Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-1030 Neural architectures for named entity recognition . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association fo...

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Zuchao Li, Jiaxun Cai, Shexia He, and Hai Zhao. 2018 a . https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C18-1271 Seq2seq dependency parsing . In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3203--3214, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Comput...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Jiaxun Cai, Zhuosheng Zhang, Hai Zhao, Gongshen Liu, Linlin Li, and Luo Si. 2018 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1262 A unified syntax-aware framework for semantic role labeling . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural L...

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Zuchao Li, Shexia He, Hai Zhao, Yiqing Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2019. https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/AAAI/article/download/4645/4523 Dependency or span, end-to-end uniform semantic role labeling . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial ...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Chu-Cheng Lin, Waleed Ammar, Chris Dyer, and Lori Levin. 2015. Unsupervised pos induction with word embeddings. Computer Science

    2015

  9. [17]

    Angli Liu, Jingfei Du, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1117 Knowledge-augmented language model and its application to unsupervised named-entity recognition . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for...

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Liyuan Liu, Jingbo Shang, Xiang Ren, Frank Fangzheng Xu, Huan Gui, Jian Peng, and Jiawei Han. 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.04109 Empower sequence labeling with task-aware neural language model . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ying Luo, Fengshun Xiao, and Hai Zhao. 2020. https://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2020GB/AAAI-LuoY.7327.pdf Hierarchical contextualized representation for named entity recognition . In the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Ying Luo and Hai Zhao. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.571 Bipartite flat-graph network for nested named entity recognition . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6408--6418

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Xuezhe Ma and Eduard Hovy. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1101 End-to-end sequence labeling via bi-directional LSTM - CNN s- CRF . In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1064--1074

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    David Nadeau, Peter D Turney, and Stan Matwin. 2006. Unsupervised named-entity recognition: Generating gazetteers and resolving ambiguity. In Conference of the Canadian society for computational studies of intelligence, pages 266--277. Springer

    2006

  15. [23]

    John K Pate and Mark Johnson. 2016. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C16-1003 Grammar induction from (lots of) words alone . In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers , pages 23--32, Osaka, Japan. The COLING...

    2016

  16. [24]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1162 G love: Global vectors for word representation . In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing ( EMNLP ) , pages 1532--1543

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Xiang Ren, Ahmed El-Kishky, Chi Wang, Fangbo Tao, Clare R Voss, and Jiawei Han. 2015. Clustype: Effective entity recognition and typing by relation phrase-based clustering. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p...

    2015

  18. [26]

    Kamal Sarkar. 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03950 A hidden markov model based system for entity extraction from social media english text at fire 2015 . arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03950

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Miran Seok, Hye-Jeong Song, Chan-Young Park, Jong-Dae Kim, and Yu-seop Kim. 2016. Named entity recognition using word embedding as a feature. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 10(2):93--104

    2016

  20. [28]

    Jingbo Shang, Liyuan Liu, Xiaotao Gu, Xiang Ren, Teng Ren, and Jiawei Han. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1230 Learning named entity tagger using domain-specific dictionary . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, page...

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Yanyao Shen, Hyokun Yun, Zachary C Lipton, Yakov Kronrod, and Animashree Anandkumar. 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05928 Deep active learning for named entity recognition . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mohammad Golam Sohrab and Makoto Miwa. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1309 Deep exhaustive model for nested named entity recognition . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2843--2849

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research

    2014

  24. [32]

    Karl Stratos, Michael Collins, and Daniel Hsu. 2016. Unsupervised part-of-speech tagging with anchor hidden markov models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:245--257

    2016

  25. [33]

    Partha Pratim Talukdar and Fernando Pereira. 2010. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P10-1149 Experiments in graph-based semi-supervised learning methods for class-instance acquisition . In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,...

    2010

  26. [34]

    Tjong Kim Sang

    Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang. 2002. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W02-2024 Introduction to the C o NLL -2002 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition . In COLING -02: The 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning 2002 ( C o NLL -2002)

    2002

  27. [35]

    Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder

    Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W03-0419 Introduction to the C o NLL -2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition . In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT - NAACL 2003 ...

    2003

  28. [36]

    Fengshun Xiao, Jiangtong Li, Hai Zhao, Rui Wang, and Kehai Chen. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1298 Lattice-based transformer encoder for neural machine translation . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3090--3097

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Jie Yang, Shuailong Liang, and Yue Zhang. 2018 a . https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C18-1327 Design challenges and misconceptions in neural sequence labeling . In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3879--3889

    2018

  30. [38]

    Jie Yang and Yue Zhang. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-4013 NCRF ++: An open-source neural sequence labeling toolkit . In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations , pages 74--79

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Yaosheng Yang, Wenliang Chen, Zhenghua Li, Zhengqiu He, and Min Zhang. 2018 b . https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C18-1183 Distantly supervised NER with partial annotation learning and reinforcement learning . In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational...

    2018

  32. [40]

    Shaodian Zhang and No \'e mie Elhadad. 2013. Unsupervised biomedical named entity recognition: Experiments with clinical and biological texts. Journal of biomedical informatics

    2013

  33. [41]

    Shuailiang Zhang, Hai Zhao, Yuwei Wu, Zhuosheng Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2020 a . https://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2020GB/AAAI-ZhangS.2771.pdf DCMN+ : Dual co-matching network for multi-choice reading comprehension . In the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial In...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Zhuosheng Zhang, Yafang Huang, and Hai Zhao. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1154 Open vocabulary learning for neural C hinese P inyin IME . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1584--1594

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Zhuosheng Zhang, Yuwei Wu, Hai Zhao, Zuchao Li, Shuailiang Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2020 b . https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.02209.pdf Semantics-aware BERT for language understanding . In the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2020)

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhuosheng Zhang, Yuwei Wu, Junru Zhou, Sufeng Duan, and Hai Zhao. 2020 c . https://aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2020GB/AAAI-ZhangZ.2069.pdf SG-N et: Syntax-guided machine reading comprehension . In the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Shaojun Zhao. 2004. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W04-1216 Named entity recognition in biomedical texts using an HMM model . In Proceedings of the International Joint Workshop on Natural Language Processing in Biomedicine and its Applications ( NLPBA / B io NLP ) , pages 87...

    2004

  38. [46]

    GuoDong Zhou and Jian Su. 2002. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073083.1073163 Named entity recognition using an HMM -based chunk tagger . In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 473--480

    2002

  39. [47]

    Junru Zhou and Hai Zhao. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1230 H ead- D riven P hrase S tructure G rammar parsing on P enn T reebank . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2396--2408

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Bo Zong, Qi Song, Martin Renqiang Min, Wei Cheng, Cristian Lumezanu, Daeki Cho, and Haifeng Chen. 2018. https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/ bzong/doc/iclr18-dagmm.pdf Deep autoencoding gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection . In International Conference on Learning R...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.