Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Dynamic Global Memory for Document-level Argument Extraction

Computation and Language · Submitted 18 Sep 2022

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Empirical results show that our framework outperforms prior methods substantially and it is more robust to adversarially annotated examples with our constrained decoding design.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2209.08679 (version 1)
Pith IDO3WFH65X, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationHeng Ji, Sha Li, Xinya Du. "Dynamic Global Memory for Document-level Argument Extraction." arXiv:2209.08679 (2022). https://pith.science/paper/O3WFH65X
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,332 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.07 · states limitation 0.10 · human participants 0.03 · controlled comparison 0.51 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.96 · mentions code or data availability 0.98.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Extracting informative arguments of events from news articles is a challenging problem in information extraction, which requires a global contextual understanding of each document. While recent work on document-level extraction has gone beyond single-sentence and increased the cross-sentence inference capability of end-to-end models, they are still restricted by certain input sequence length constraints and usually ignore the global context between events. To tackle this issue, we introduce a new global neural generation-based framework for document-level event argument extraction by constructing a document memory store to record the contextual event information and leveraging it to implicitly and explicitly help with decoding of arguments for later events. Empirical results show that our framework outperforms prior methods substantially and it is more robust to adversarially annotated examples with our constrained decoding design. (Our code and resources are available at https://github.com/xinyadu/memory_docie for research purpose.)

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Extracting informative arguments of events from news articles is a challenging problem in information extraction, which requires a global contextual understanding of each document. background 1.00 0.05 0.03 asserted 1.00
s1 While recent work on document-level extraction has gone beyond single-sentence and increased the cross-sentence inference capability of end-to-end models, they are still restricted by certain input sequence length constraints and usually ignore the global context between events. gap 0.91 0.05 0.03 asserted 1.00
s2 To tackle this issue, we introduce a new global neural generation-based framework for document-level event argument extraction by constructing a document memory store to record the contextual event information and leveraging it to implicitly and explicitly help with decoding of arguments for later events. contribution 0.51 0.88 0.09 asserted 0.98
s3 Empirical results show that our framework outperforms prior methods substantially and it is more robust to adversarially annotated examples with our constrained decoding design. result 1.00 0.96 0.82 asserted 1.00
s4 (Our code and resources are available at https://github.com/xinyadu/memory_docie for research purpose.) contribution 0.46 0.31 0.02 asserted 0.87

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.96.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Extracting informative arguments of events from news articles is a challenging problem in information extraction, which requires a global contextual understanding of each document. While recent work on document-level extraction has gone beyond single-sentence and increased the cross-sentence inference capability of end-to-end models, they are still restricted by certain input sequence length constraints and usually ignore the global context between events. To tackle this issue, we introduce a new global neural generation-based framework for document-level event argument extraction by constructing a document memory store to record the contextual event information and leveraging it to implicitly and explicitly help with decoding of arguments for later events. Empirical results show that our framework outperforms prior methods substantially and it is more robust to adversarially annotated examples with our constrained decoding design. (Our code and resources are available at https://github.com/xinyadu/memory_docie for research purpose.)

Human review
How the literature uses it

2 arXiv papers cite this in 4 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 3 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 1 paper

What it cites

Compares with 1 paper

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.