Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Mastering the Task of Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models and Consistent Reasoning Environment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.10590 v1 pith:M74KOUW3 submitted 2023-10-16 cs.CL

Mastering the Task of Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models and Consistent Reasoning Environment

classification cs.CL
keywords environmentextractioninformationllmsmethodmodelsreasoningeffectively
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Open Information Extraction (OIE) aims to extract objective structured knowledge from natural texts, which has attracted growing attention to build dedicated models with human experience. As the large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable in-context learning capabilities, a question arises as to whether the task of OIE can be effectively tackled with this paradigm? In this paper, we explore solving the OIE problem by constructing an appropriate reasoning environment for LLMs. Specifically, we first propose a method to effectively estimate the discrepancy of syntactic distribution between a LLM and test samples, which can serve as correlation evidence for preparing positive demonstrations. Upon the evidence, we introduce a simple yet effective mechanism to establish the reasoning environment for LLMs on specific tasks. Without bells and whistles, experimental results on the standard CaRB benchmark demonstrate that our $6$-shot approach outperforms state-of-the-art supervised method, achieving an $55.3$ $F_1$ score. Further experiments on TACRED and ACE05 show that our method can naturally generalize to other information extraction tasks, resulting in improvements of $5.7$ and $6.8$ $F_1$ scores, respectively.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.