Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Multi-label Sequential Sentence Classification via Large Language Model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2-billion-parameter model with a new contrastive loss sets the top F1 scores on multi-label rhetorical tagging of biomedical abstracts.

desk verdict The new BIORC800 dataset is the real contribution; the claimed SOTA gains rest on an unfair threshold comparison and are probably within noise. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15623 v2 pith:2H4JWZCP submitted 2024-11-23 cs.CL

Mengfei Lan , Lecheng Zheng , Shufan Ming , Halil Kilicoglu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords sequentialsentenceclassificationmulti-labellargelanguagemodelscontrastivelearningprompt-basedfine-tuningrhetoricalrolesbiomedicalabstractsBIORC800
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 claims that a 2-billion-parameter language model, prompted to generate rhetorical labels sentence by sentence, can beat specialized hierarchical neural networks at sequential sentence classification, including the multi-label case where one sentence can be, say, both Objective and Methods. To support this, the authors introduce a new auto-weighting contrastive loss (WeighCon) that forms positive pairs from sentences sharing any common label and down-weights negative pairs with similar label vectors, avoiding the class-collision problem. They also release BIORC800, a manually annotated corpus of 800 biomedical abstracts, mostly unstructured, with multi-label rhetorical annotations. On that dataset, the method reports the highest micro F1 (0.907) and macro F1 (0.912) among the compared baselines. If correct, the result means that large generative models with a tailored contrastive objective can replace elaborate sequential architectures for this task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the auto-weighting multi-label contrastive loss, WeighCon, defined by a contrastive term summed over labels with positive pairs formed whenever two sentences share a positive class, and with a learned weighting function $\alpha_{ij} = \sigma(\mathrm{MLP}(y_i, y_j))$ that reduces the contribution of negative pairs whose label vectors are similar. The paper also relies on the prompt construction (demonstration plus query, with the demonstration selected by SimCSE similarity), the 'space-thinking' mechanism that lets the model emit two extra tokens before the answer and maps them through an MLP, and low-rank adaptation (LoRA) for parameter-efficient tuning. Together these convert a generic 2-billion-parameter generative model into a sequential labeler that sees the whole paragraph as context.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random sample of the 700 singly annotated abstracts with multiple independent annotators, compute Cohen's kappa on that sample, and re-evaluate LLM-SSC and the baselines on a subset where the new annotations agree with the original labels; if the F1 ranking changes or the kappa is low, the claimed state of the art on BIORC800 is not robust to label noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LLM-SSC treats sequential sentence classification as conditional text generation: each sentence's label is generated by a large language model from a prompt that contains the full paragraph as context, a demonstration selected by SimCSE similarity, and a query naming the target sentence. For task-specific tuning, the model is fine-tuned with low-rank adaptation (LoRA), and the 'space-thinking' mechanism generates two extra tokens before the label, whose hidden states are mapped to the label space by a two-layer MLP. To handle multi-label data, the paper proposes WeighCon, a contrastive loss with an auto-weighting MLP that relaxes the positive-pair constraint to 'share at least one positive class' and reweights negative pairs by label-vector similarity. The paper also presents BIORC800, 800 manually annotated biomedical abstracts (700 unstructured), with 5.7% of sentences carrying multiple labels. The main empirical claim is that on BIORC800, LLM-SSC with WeighCon obtains the highest micro and macro F1 scores (0.907 and 0.912, respectively) among the compared systems, with only about 4% of the model parameters trainable; on single-label datasets it is near state of the art but not the best on micro F1.

Load-bearing premise

The reported scores treat the manually reconciled labels of BIORC800 as ground truth, but agreement was measured only on the first 100 abstracts, so noise in the remaining 700 single-annotator labels could change the performance ranking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-label rhetorical tagging can be performed by a generative model prompted with the full abstract, without any sequential CRF or BIO-tagging layer.
  • Approximately 4% of the model's parameters need to be trainable via LoRA to reach the reported scores, lowering storage and memory requirements.
  • The BIORC800 dataset provides a manual multi-label benchmark on unstructured biomedical abstracts, complementing auto-generated single-label datasets like PubMed 200K RCT.
  • The ablation study shows that each of the three components—demonstration in the prompt, the WeighCon loss, and the space-thinking mechanism—improves F1, with a larger impact on the smaller CS-Abstract dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The positive-pair relaxation in WeighCon could plausibly be applied to any multi-label classification task where exact label-vector matches are rare, not just sentence tagging; the paper does not test this beyond SSC.
  • The 5-shot-over-10-shot in-context learning result suggests demonstration selection and ordering matter more than quantity, but the paper does not vary retrieval methods, leaving this as a testable extension.
  • Because agreement was measured only on the first 100 abstracts, the labels for the remaining 700 singly annotated abstracts could contain systematic noise; re-annotating a random sample with multiple annotators would test whether the reported F1 gaps are stable.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLM-SSC, a Gemma-2b-based framework for sequential sentence classification (SSC) that supports both single-label and multi-label settings via in-context learning (ICL) and parameter-efficient LoRA fine-tuning. The method uses demonstration-and-query prompts, a 'space thinking' mechanism that generates extra tokens before the label, and an auto-weighting multi-label contrastive loss (WeighCon). The authors also introduce and release BIORC800, a manually annotated multi-label SSC dataset of biomedical RCT abstracts, and evaluate LLM-SSC on BIORC800, CS-ABSTRACT, PubMed 20K RCT, and ART-CORE SC. The central empirical claim is that LLM-SSC with WeighCon achieves the highest micro and macro F1 scores (0.907 and 0.912) on BIORC800, and is near state-of-the-art on single-label datasets.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap by extending SSC to multi-label annotation and to LLM-based generation, and the released BIORC800 dataset plus code could be a useful community resource. The WeighCon loss is a reasonable attempt to handle the multi-label contrastive-learning challenges of sparse positive pairs and class collision, and the comparison across four datasets gives a broad picture. The paper also reports ablation studies and an analysis of the space-thinking mechanism. These are genuine strengths. However, the headline comparative claim rests on a small margin over baselines under an asymmetric thresholding protocol, and the results are single-run point estimates without uncertainty quantification; these issues must be addressed before the SOTA claim is credible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.2 and 3.3] The comparison between LLM-SSC and the baselines on BIORC800 is asymmetric in threshold selection. In Section 3.2, the baseline models are adapted to multi-label prediction with a fixed threshold of 0.4, 'chosen empirically to balance precision and recall for each label.' In Section 3.3, LLM-SSC is evaluated using dynamic thresholding, where the optimal per-label threshold is selected on the validation set by maximizing label-specific F1. This protocol gives LLM-SSC a tuning advantage that the baselines do not receive. Because the reported margins are small (Table 3: micro F1 0.907 vs. 0.905 for SSC; macro F1 0.912 vs. 0.897 for SciBERT-HSLN), applying the same per-label validation-tuned thresholding to the baselines, or a fixed threshold to LLM-SSC, could change the ranking. The paper should report both versions or otherwise justify why the asymmetric protocol is fair.
  2. [Table 3 and Table 4] All F1 scores in the main results and ablations are single-run point estimates. No confidence intervals, multiple seeds, or significance tests are reported. The BIORC800 test set contains only 160 abstracts (about 1,600 sentences), so a shift of a few sentences can move the micro and macro F1 by the observed margin of 0.002–0.015. The ablation gaps (e.g., w/o WeighCon at 0.896 vs. 0.907, w/o Space Thinking at 0.892 vs. 0.907 in Table 4) may well be within run-to-run noise. The authors should provide repeated runs with different seeds, bootstrap confidence intervals, or paired significance tests for the key comparisons and ablations. Without such evidence, the claim that LLM-SSC with WeighCon is 'the highest' on BIORC800 is not robust.
  3. [Section 3.1] The reliability of the BIORC800 annotations is not established for the majority of the dataset. Inter-annotator agreement (Cohen's kappa) is reported only for the first two rounds, covering 100 abstracts. The remaining 700 abstracts were annotated by a single annotator each and then reconciled by one senior annotator, with no agreement or adjudication metrics reported for this large portion. Since BIORC800 is both a contribution and the evaluation benchmark, label noise in the 700-abstract set could affect all measured F1 scores and the conclusions drawn from them. The authors should provide a reliability assessment on a sample of the remaining abstracts, or at least an explicit description of the reconciliation procedure and its consistency.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] There is a typo in 'We finally splited the 800 abstracts'; it should be 'split.'
  2. [Abstract and Appendix B] The dataset is named BIORC800 in the abstract and throughout, but Appendix B refers to aggregating annotations into the 'BIORC-1000 dataset.' This naming inconsistency should be fixed.
  3. [Section 4] In Related Works, 'CSABSTRUCT (Cohan et al., 2019)' appears to be a typo for 'CSABSTRACT' or 'CS-ABSTRACT'; please correct the citation name.
  4. [Section 3.2] The baseline threshold description ('a threshold of 0.4 chosen empirically to balance precision and recall for each label') is ambiguous: it is unclear whether a single global threshold or per-label thresholds were used. Please clarify.
  5. [Equation (9)] In the WeighCon loss formula, the denominator notation 'Σ_k(1 − αik)sim(hi, hk)' does not specify the index set over k or its dependence on the label c; please make the summation indices explicit.
  6. [Section 3.4.1] The phrase '10-shots' is grammatically awkward; '10-shot settings' or 'ten demonstrations' would read better.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical LLM benchmark paper; no derivation reduces to its own inputs, so circularity score is 0.

full rationale

This is an empirical paper with no claimed formal derivation whose conclusions are equivalent to its inputs by construction. LLM-SSC is an LLM prompt/fine-tuning framework, and WeighCon is a supervised contrastive loss; its positive-pair definition (sharing at least one positive label), auto-weighting MLP over label vectors, and negative-pair reweighting are all training-loss components, while the reported F1 numbers come from held-out test-set predictions. Introducing and then benchmarking on BIORC800 is standard dataset-construction practice, not self-definitional circularity. Self-citations (e.g., HeroCon as a baseline and related contrastive-learning work) are used as baselines or context, not as load-bearing evidence that forces the central result. The validation-set threshold tuning for LLM-SSC versus the fixed 0.4 threshold for baselines is a legitimate experimental-design and fairness concern, but it concerns whether the comparison is controlled, not whether a result is assumed by construction. No equation was found where the predicted quantity is identical to a fitted input, and no uniqueness or ansatz claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the correct circularity finding is none.

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

The paper introduces no new physical or metaphysical entities. The free parameters are experimental choices (thresholds, loss weight, number of tokens) that affect the reported results. The axioms are domain assumptions about data quality and model suitability, plus standard mathematical background.

free parameters (4)
  • Baseline multi-label threshold = 0.4
    Chosen empirically to balance precision and recall for each baseline (Section 3.2).
  • Per-label dynamic thresholds for LLM-SSC = not reported
    Optimal thresholds per label are selected by maximizing label-specific F1 on the validation set (Section 3.3).
  • Contrastive loss scaling factor lambda = 0.1
    Default weighting of the WeighCon loss in the final loss (Eq. 10).
  • Number of generated tokens (space thinking) = 2
    Selected based on the analysis in Table 5, where 2 tokens gave the best F1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BIORC800 manual annotations are accurate enough to serve as ground truth
    The dataset is newly created and only partially double-annotated; the entire evaluation rests on this assumption (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption SimCSE embeddings provide a useful similarity signal for selecting demonstrations
    Demonstrations for in-context learning are chosen by cosine similarity from SimCSE (Section 2.2); if the similarity ranking is poor, the ICL results would be affected.
  • domain assumption Gemma-2b is a suitable backbone for SSC
    All experiments use Gemma-2b; the method's success depends on this model's capability for the task (Section 3.3).
  • standard math Standard loss functions and optimizers behave as expected
    The cross-entropy loss, LoRA, and AdamW are standard and assumed to work without issue (Sections 2.3 and 3.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-label Sequential Sentence Classification via Large Language Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2H4JWZCP

@misc{pith2026241115623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-label Sequential Sentence Classification via Large Language Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2H4JWZCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15623}
}
read the original abstract

Sequential sentence classification (SSC) in scientific publications is crucial for supporting downstream tasks such as fine-grained information retrieval and extractive summarization. However, current SSC methods are constrained by model size, sequence length, and single-label setting. To address these limitations, this paper proposes LLM-SSC, a large language model (LLM)-based framework for both single- and multi-label SSC tasks. Unlike previous approaches that employ small- or medium-sized language models, the proposed framework utilizes LLMs to generate SSC labels through designed prompts, which enhance task understanding by incorporating demonstrations and a query to describe the prediction target. We also present a multi-label contrastive learning loss with auto-weighting scheme, enabling the multi-label classification task. To support our multi-label SSC analysis, we introduce and release a new dataset, biorc800, which mainly contains unstructured abstracts in the biomedical domain with manual annotations. Experiments demonstrate LLM-SSC's strong performance in SSC under both in-context learning and task-specific tuning settings. We release biorc800 and our code at: https://github.com/ScienceNLP-Lab/LLM-SSC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structure of our LLM-based in-context learning and finetuning for SSC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. BIORC800 1-shot Prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CS-ABSTRACT 1-shot Prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PUBMED 20K RCT 1-shot Prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ART-CORESC 1-shot Prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shashank Agarwal and Hong Yu. 2009. Automatically classifying sentences in full-text biomedical articles into introduction, methods, results and discussion. Bioinformatics, 25(23):3174--3180

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Asan Agibetov, Kathrin Blagec, Hong Xu, and Matthias Samwald. 2018. Fast and scalable neural embedding models for biomedical sentence classification. BMC bioinformatics, 19(1):1--9

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Saad Albawi, Tareq Abed Mohammed, and Saad Al-Zawi. 2017. Understanding of a convolutional neural network. In 2017 international conference on engineering and technology (ICET), pages 1--6. Ieee

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1371 S ci BERT : A pretrained language model for scientific text . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3615--3620, Hong Kong, China...

    doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1371 2019

  5. [5]

    Arthur Brack, Elias Entrup, Markos Stamatakis, Pascal Buscherm \"o hle, Anett Hoppe, and Ralph Ewerth. 2024. Sequential sentence classification in research papers using cross-domain multi-task learning. International Journal on Digital Libraries (2024), online first

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Arthur Brack, Anett Hoppe, Pascal Buscherm \"o hle, and Ralph Ewerth. 2022. Cross-domain multi-task learning for sequential sentence classification in research papers. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pages 1--13

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Junfan Chen, Richong Zhang, Yongyi Mao, and Jie Xu. 2022 a . Contrastnet: A contrastive learning framework for few-shot text classification. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10492--10500

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Qianben Chen, Richong Zhang, Yaowei Zheng, and Yongyi Mao. 2022 b . Dual contrastive learning: Text classification via label-aware data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08702

    arXiv 2022

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Arman Cohan, Iz Beltagy, Daniel King, Bhavana Dalvi, and Dan Weld. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1383 Pretrained language models for sequential sentence classification . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Arzoo Katiyar, Rebecca Passonneau, and Rui Zhang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.439 CONT ai NER : Few-shot named entity recognition via contrastive learning . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa...

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Carmen Dayrell, Arnaldo Candido Jr, Gabriel Lima, Danilo Machado Jr, Ann A Copestake, Val \'e ria Delisandra Feltrim, Stella EO Tagnin, and Sandra M Alu \' sio. 2012. Rhetorical move detection in english abstracts: Multi-label sentence classifiers and their annotated corpora. ...

    2012

  4. [12]

    Franck Dernoncourt and Ji Young Lee. 2017. Pubmed 200k RCT: a dataset for sequential sentence classification in medical abstracts. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, IJCNLP 2017, Taipei, Taiwan, November 27 - December 1,...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Franck Dernoncourt, Ji Young Lee, and Peter Szolovits. 2017. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/E17-2110 Neural networks for joint sentence classification in medical paper abstracts . In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the E uropean Chapter of the Association for Computati...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, and Zhifang Sui. 2022. A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Beatriz Fisas, Horacio Saggion, and Francesco Ronzano. 2015. On the discoursive structure of computer graphics research papers. In Proceedings of the 9th linguistic annotation workshop, pages 42--51

    2015

  9. [17]

    Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.552 S im CSE : Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894--6910, Online ...

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    S \'e rgio Gon c alves, Paulo Cortez, and S \'e rgio Moro. 2020. A deep learning classifier for sentence classification in biomedical and computer science abstracts. Neural Computing and Applications, 32:6793--6807

    2020

  11. [19]

    Sachin Goyal, Ziwei Ji, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Sanjiv Kumar, and Vaishnavh Nagarajan. 2024. Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, Ma...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Beliz Gunel, Jingfei Du, Alexis Conneau, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2021. Supervised contrastive learning for pre-trained language model fine-tuning. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021 . OpenReview.net

    2021

  13. [21]

    Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. 2020. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9729--9738

    2020

  14. [22]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen - Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen - Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, ...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Yucheng Huang, Kai He, Yige Wang, Xianli Zhang, Tieliang Gong, Rui Mao, and Chen Li. 2022. Copner: Contrastive learning with prompt guiding for few-shot named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 29th International conference on computational linguistics, pages 2515--2527

    2022

  16. [24]

    Xinyu Jiang, Bowen Zhang, Yunming Ye, and Zhenhua Liu. 2019. A hierarchical model with recurrent convolutional neural networks for sequential sentence classification. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 8th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2019, Dunhuang, ...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Antonio Jimeno Yepes, James Mork, and Alan Aronson. 2013. https://aclanthology.org/W13-1913 Using the argumentative structure of scientific literature to improve information access . In Proceedings of the 2013 Workshop on Biomedical Natural Language Processing, pages 102--110,...

    2013

  18. [26]

    Di Jin and Peter Szolovits. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1349 Hierarchical neural networks for sequential sentence classification in medical scientific abstracts . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3100--3...

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised contrastive learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Su Nam Kim, David Martinez, Lawrence Cavedon, and Lars Yencken. 2011. Automatic classification of sentences to support evidence based medicine. In BMC bioinformatics, volume 12, pages 1--10. BioMed Central

    2011

  21. [29]

    Mengfei Lan, Mandy Cheng, Linh Hoang, Gerben Ter Riet, and Halil Kilicoglu. 2024. Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications. Journal of biomedical informatics, 152:104628

    2024

  22. [30]

    Xiangci Li, Gully Burns, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. Scientific discourse tagging for evidence extraction. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2550--2562

    2021

  23. [31]

    Maria Liakata, Simone Teufel, Advaith Siddharthan, and Colin Batchelor. 2010. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/644_Paper.pdf Corpora for the conceptualisation and zoning of scientific papers . In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language ...

    2010

  24. [32]

    Paul Pu Liang, Zihao Deng, Martin Q Ma, James Y Zou, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2024. Factorized contrastive learning: Going beyond multi-view redundancy. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  25. [33]

    Wenxiong Liao, Zhengliang Liu, Haixing Dai, Zihao Wu, Yiyang Zhang, Xiaoke Huang, Yuzhong Chen, Xi Jiang, David Liu, Dajiang Zhu, et al. 2024. Mask-guided bert for few-shot text classification. Neurocomputing, page 128576

    2024

  26. [34]

    Jimmy Lin, Damianos Karakos, Dina Demner-Fushman, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2006. Generative content models for structural analysis of medical abstracts. In Proceedings of the hlt-naacl bionlp workshop on linking natural language and biology, pages 65--72

    2006

  27. [35]

    Larry McKnight and Padmini Srinivasan. 2003. Categorization of sentence types in medical abstracts. In AMIA annual symposium proceedings, volume 2003, page 440. American Medical Informatics Association

    2003

  28. [36]

    Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26

    2013

  29. [37]

    Ying Mo, Jian Yang, Jiahao Liu, Qifan Wang, Ruoyu Chen, Jingang Wang, and Zhoujun Li. 2024. mcl-ner: Cross-lingual named entity recognition via multi-view contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18789--18797

    2024

  30. [38]

    Diego Moll \'a . 2022. Overview of the 2022 alta shared task: Piboso sentence classification, 10 years later. In Proceedings of the The 20th Annual Workshop of the Australasian Language Technology Association, pages 178--182

    2022

  31. [39]

    Lin Pan, Chung-Wei Hang, Avirup Sil, and Saloni Potdar. 2022. Improved text classification via contrastive adversarial training. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11130--11138

    2022

  32. [40]

    Sameer Pradhan, Kadri Hacioglu, Wayne Ward, James H Martin, and Daniel Jurafsky. 2003. Semantic role parsing: Adding semantic structure to unstructured text. In Third IEEE international conference on data mining, pages 629--632. IEEE

    2003

  33. [41]

    Patrick Ruch, Celia Boyer, Christine Chichester, Imad Tbahriti, Antoine Geissb \"u hler, Paul Fabry, Julien Gobeill, Violaine Pillet, Dietrich Rebholz-Schuhmann, Christian Lovis, et al. 2007. Using argumentation to extract key sentences from biomedical abstracts. International...

    2007

  34. [42]

    Xichen Shang, Qianli Ma, Zhenxi Lin, Jiangyue Yan, and Zipeng Chen. 2021. A span-based dynamic local attention model for sequential sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Jo...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Connor Stead, Stephen Smith, Peter Busch, and Savanid Vatanasakdakul. 2019. Emerald 110k: a multidisciplinary dataset for abstract sentence classification. In Proceedings of the The 17th Annual Workshop of the Australasian Language Technology Association, pages 120--125

    2019

  36. [44]

    Xiaofei Sun, Xiaoya Li, Jiwei Li, Fei Wu, Shangwei Guo, Tianwei Zhang, and Guoyin Wang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.603 Text classification via large language models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 899...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Gemma Team, Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivi \`e re, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, et al. 2024. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Simone Teufel and Marc Moens. 1998. Sentence extraction and rhetorical classification for flexible abstracts. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Intelligent Text summarization, pages 89--97

    1998

  39. [47]

    Somin Wadhwa, Silvio Amir, and Byron C Wallace. 2023. Revisiting relation extraction in the era of large language models. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2023, page 15566. NIH Public Access

    2023

  40. [48]

    Ran Wang, Xinyu Dai, et al. 2022. Contrastive learning-enhanced nearest neighbor mechanism for multi-label text classification. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 672--679

    2022

  41. [49]

    Shaorong Xie, Chunning Hou, Hang Yu, Zhenyu Zhang, Xiangfeng Luo, and Nengjun Zhu. 2022. Multi-label disaster text classification via supervised contrastive learning for social media data. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 104:108401

    2022

  42. [50]

    Kosuke Yamada, Tsutomu Hirao, Ryohei Sasano, Koichi Takeda, and Masaaki Nagata. 2020. Sequential span classification with neural semi-markov crfs for biomedical abstracts. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 871--877

    2020

  43. [51]

    Ruohong Zhang, Yau-Shian Wang, and Yiming Yang. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-long.39 Generation-driven contrastive self-training for zero-shot text classification with instruction-following LLM . In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the ...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Sheng Zhang, Hao Cheng, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2023 a . Optimizing bi-encoder for named entity recognition via contrastive learning. ICLR 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Xin Zhang, Jingling Yuan, Lin Li, and Jianquan Liu. 2023 b . Reducing the bias of visual objects in multimodal named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pages 958--966

    2023

  46. [54]

    Yu Zhang, Zhihong Shen, Chieh-Han Wu, Boya Xie, Junheng Hao, Ye-Yi Wang, Kuansan Wang, and Jiawei Han. 2022. Metadata-induced contrastive learning for zero-shot multi-label text classification. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pages 3162--3173

    2022

  47. [55]

    Lecheng Zheng, Zhengzhang Chen, Jingrui He, and Haifeng Chen. 2024 a . MULAN: multi-modal causal structure learning and root cause analysis for microservice systems. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, WWW 2024, Singapore, May 13-17, 2024 , pages 4107--4116. ACM

    2024

  48. [56]

    Lecheng Zheng, Baoyu Jing, Zihao Li, Hanghang Tong, and Jingrui He. 2024 b . Heterogeneous contrastive learning for foundation models and beyond. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2024, Barcelona, Spain, August 25-29, ...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Lecheng Zheng, Jinjun Xiong, Yada Zhu, and Jingrui He. 2022. Contrastive learning with complex heterogeneity. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 2594--2604

    2022

  50. [58]

    Lecheng Zheng, Yada Zhu, and Jingrui He. 2023. Fairness-aware multi-view clustering. In Proceedings of the 2023 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, SDM 2023, Minneapolis-St. Paul Twin Cities, MN, USA, April 27-29, 2023 , pages 856--864. SIAM

    2023

  51. [59]

    Mingkai Zheng, Fei Wang, Shan You, Chen Qian, Changshui Zhang, Xiaogang Wang, and Chang Xu. 2021. Weakly supervised contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10042--10051

    2021

  52. [60]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  53. [61]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.