Zero-shot Cross-lingual NER via Mitigating Language Difference: An Entity-aligned Translation Perspective

Dong Zhang; Guodong Zhou; Shoushan Li; Sophia Yat Mei Lee; Zhihao Zhang

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Zero-shot Cross-lingual NER via Mitigating Language Difference: An Entity-aligned Translation Perspective

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read EAT makes LLM translation entity-aware and lifts zero-shot NER on non-Latin-script languages to an average F1 of 65.81, about four points over the prior state of the art.

desk verdict Novel entity-aligned dual translation with LLMs shows real gains on non-Latin-script NER, but the cause isn't pinned down until a same-scale translation-only control and leakage checks are added. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01147 v1 pith:GEKXONJS submitted 2025-09-01 cs.CL

Zhihao Zhang , Sophia Yat Mei Lee , Dong Zhang , Shoushan Li , Guodong Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords zero-shotcross-lingualNERentity-alignedtranslationnon-Latinscriptlanguageslargelanguagemodelsteacher-studentdistillationdualchain-of-thoughtWikipediainterlanguagelinks

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

Zero-shot cross-lingual named entity recognition works poorly on non-Latin-script languages because translating the target sentence into English tends to drop or distort the very names the task wants to find. This paper proposes making translation entity-aware: an LLM first translates the target text into English while explicitly reasoning about likely entities, an English NER model labels entities in that translation, and a second LLM pass translates each English entity back and verifies that it appears verbatim in the original sentence. This round-trip, called Entity-Aligned Translation (EAT), lets an English-only NER model annotate Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and other non-Latin languages without any labeled target-language data. On eight WikiANN languages, EAT reports an average F1 of 65.81, about four points above the previous best teacher-student method, and it also outperforms that baseline on MultiCoNER-1. A reader should care because it suggests the bottleneck for zero-shot NER on distant-script languages is entity-preserving translation, not label-transfer architecture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dual-translation loop with multi-round chain-of-thought (MrCoT). In the forward pass, the LLM is asked in a first round to identify likely named entities in the target sentence and explain them, in a second round to translate with that explanation in mind, and in a third round to output only the clean English sentence. A text-to-text English NER model labels entities in that translation. In the backward pass, the same LLM translates each English entity back into the target language and self-checks that the result appears as an exact span in the original sentence; only surviving spans are output as NER results. To strengthen localization, the paper builds an Eng

What would settle it

Take a held-out sample of WikiANN sentences in Arabic or Chinese, run EAT, and compare each backward-reconstructed span against the gold entity span. If a substantial fraction of gold entities, say more than 5 percent, have no exact or contained match in the reconstruction while the overall F1 gain persists, then the gain is not coming from the claimed entity-alignment mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gap between English and non-Latin-script languages is best closed at the entity level, not at the label-distribution level. Concretely, EAT's dual-translation mechanism treats the target sentence as untouchable evidence: after forward translation and English NER, each candidate entity is translated back into the target language and checked against the original sentence, so an extracted entity is only accepted when it can be localized as an exact span in the source text. The paper further claims that fine-tuning the translation LLM on Wikipedia-derived entity-description pairs improves this alignment on average, and that NER performance scales with LLM translatio

Load-bearing premise

Every entity in the original target sentence must survive as a recognizable named-entity phrase in the English translation, and the backward pass must be able to recover the exact original span; if an entity is paraphrased, omitted, or mis-checked, there is no second chance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If EAT is right, zero-shot NER on non-Latin-script languages no longer needs target-language training data or parallel corpora: the only trained component is the English NER extractor, and it serves all target languages at once.
Translation quality becomes the main lever: improving the LLM's entity-preserving translation should raise NER F1 directly, since the reported BLEU scores and F1 scores move together.
The mechanism is not dataset-specific: reported gains on MultiCoNER-1 over DenKD and GPT-4 suggest the translation-based route generalizes beyond WikiANN.
Teacher-student distillation is not the only viable route to cross-lingual NER; a span-preserving translation route can match or beat it, especially on languages with SOV order and non-Latin scripts.
The paper's own ablations show fine-tuning on EACL helps on average but hurts on some languages, so the alignment-fine-tuning step is not uniformly necessary and its regime matters.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension: the same entity-preserving round-trip could be applied to other English-based structured-prediction tasks on non-Latin scripts, such as relation extraction or event extraction, where span survival is the failure mode; the paper only tests NER.
A cheaper variant suggests itself: the backward pass only needs to confirm that the English entity's translation is an exact span in the original sentence, so the alignment check could in principle be replaced by a deterministic string match over candidate translations, removing the LLM self-check failure mode.
Because fine-tuning can hurt performance, a reasoning-focused or RL-style training objective that rewards exact span recovery might outperform the direct fine-tuning used here.
The method reframes LSL versus NSL as a translation-difficulty axis rather than a script identity: the paper's Latin-script experiments show the pipeline is not script-specific, so any language pair with strong LLM translation quality is a candidate target.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The thing to know: this paper has a genuinely new mechanism—LLM dual translation with multi-round CoT and backward span checking, plus Wikipedia interlanguage-link fine-tuning—and it reports clear F1 gains on eight non-Latin script languages. But the headline 4-point improvement over DenKD is not yet attributable to that mechanism. The authors compare a 14B LLM pipeline against BERT/encoder-scale baselines cited from earlier papers, and they never run the obvious control: same 14B LLM as a plain target-to-English translator, same English NER extractor, standard span projection. Without that, the gain could just be LLM translation quality. Table 5's monotonic scaling with model size makes that worry concrete, and the BLEU/entropy analysis measures round-trip fidelity, not entity preservation.

What is good: the design is coherent and the problem is real. The paper shows the case where direct translation drops a Chinese name into an adjective, and the backward-checking step is a sensible repair. The EACL corpus construction from interlanguage links is reproducible, code and data are promised, and the additional results on MultiCoNER-1 and Latin script languages are useful. They also report negative results honestly: fine-tuning hurts on 3 of 8 languages, and the paper's own example in Figure 5 shows the FT model aligning 'Ming Dynasty' to a wrong Korean span.

Soft spots: no variance or significance testing; baseline numbers are cited, not rerun, so the comparison has unknown calibration; EACL–WikiANN overlap is not checked, and WikiANN sentences come from Wikipedia just like the EACL summaries, so potential leakage is real; Figure 3 uses rescaled axes, and the claim that F1 always sits between BLEU and entropy loss is a rough visual claim; the CoT-rounds ablation is only on ZH and AR. None of these are fatal individually, but together they mean the improvement's attribution is not established.

The reader's take is fair. The weakest-assumption point about entity survival in translation is also fair—if the English translation paraphrases or drops the entity, the backward check has nothing to work with.

This paper deserves a serious referee. I'd send it out, with a request for a same-scale translation-only baseline, variance across seeds, an overlap check, and an ablation that isolates entity alignment. If those hold, the 65.81 average F1 is a real subfield improvement.

For the reading group: I'd bring it. The method is actually new, the limitations are acknowledged, and the failure modes are instructive. I'd cite it if I worked on zero-shot CL-NER.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EAT, an entity-aligned dual-translation framework for zero-shot cross-lingual NER on non-Latin script languages. EAT translates a target sentence to English with a multi-round chain-of-thought LLM, extracts English entities with a T5-based NER extractor, then back-translates each English entity with an explicit span-check prompt to recover the target-language fragment. Optionally, the LLM is fine-tuned on EACL, a Wikipedia-derived entity-description corpus, using QLoRA. Experiments on WikiANN across eight non-Latin-script languages report an average F1 of 65.81, exceeding the teacher-student SOTA DenKD (61.21) by about 4.6 points, with additional results on MultiCoNER-1, Latin-script languages, LLM-size scaling, and ablation studies.

Significance. If the reported gains are real and attributable to the proposed mechanism, EAT would be a strong new method for zero-shot CL-NER on non-Latin scripts, a setting where prior teacher-student and translation-based methods plateau. The paper also contributes a dual-translation formulation with explicit entity-back-translation, a Wikipedia-based fine-tuning corpus (EACL), and a released code/data link. The extensive ablations (LLM size, NER extractor, CoT rounds, EACL size, LSL and MultiCoNER generalization) are valuable. However, the central claim is currently supported mainly by comparisons against smaller, older baselines; the key confound of LLM translation quality versus the entity-aligned mechanism is not controlled, and the fine-tuning contribution is inconsistent. With additional controls and an overlap check, the method could be solid.

major comments (5)

[§4.3, Table 4] The central claim that EAT outperforms SOTA is confounded by LLM scale and translation quality. All teacher-student and translation baselines are BERT/encoder-scale; no same-scale translation-only control is run. A control using Qwen2.5-14B to translate target->English, the same English NER extractor, and a simple alignment/projection of entities back to the target would isolate the effect of entity-aware dual translation from raw translation ability. Table 5 shows F1 rising monotonically with LLM size (AR 46.51->66.53; ZH 48.46->60.12), consistent with a translation-quality effect. The BLEU/entropy analysis in §3.4 measures round-trip text fidelity, not entity preservation, so it does not establish the mechanism.
[§3.2 and §4.1] Potential train/test contamination between EACL and WikiANN is not examined. EACL is built from Wikipedia interlanguage links and CoNLL2003 entity phrases; WikiANN is also Wikipedia-derived. If EACL entity-text pairs overlap with WikiANN test sentences, the fine-tuned results—e.g., JA 45.43->52.26, KA 71.63->73.68—could be inflated. The authors should report overlap statistics and, if overlap exists, re-evaluate on a disjoint subset or analyze the test sentences containing EACL entities separately.
[§4.3, Table 4] Fine-tuning (Section 3.3) is a core contribution but improves only 5 of 8 languages; RU drops 71.45->63.25, KO 66.03->65.23, and HI 76.26->75.46. The paper's 'inductive bias' explanation is speculative and unsupported. A per-language error analysis, entity-type breakdown, or ablations varying EACL corpus composition (Table 14 reports only ZH/AR) are needed to substantiate the fine-tuning contribution. Without this, the inconsistent gains make the effectiveness of the proposed FT mechanism unclear.
[§3.1, Eqs. (5)-(7), Figure 5] The method's load-bearing assumption is that the backward-translation self-check reliably returns the exact target-language span. Figure 5 shows the FT model asserting that '명 태조 홍무제 25년' appears in the given sentence, when the correct alignment is only '명'. The paper uses this as an error case, but it also demonstrates that the check can be unreliable. The authors should report entity-level alignment accuracy (exact match of predicted target span against gold) for both w/ and w/o FT, rather than only BLEU/entropy, to quantify how often this assumption holds.
[All experiments] No variance or statistical significance is reported. The claimed 4-point average improvement (61.21 vs 65.81) and per-language differences may be within decoding or training noise. Please provide standard deviations over at least 3 runs or decoding samples and paired significance tests (e.g., bootstrap or matched-pair) for the main Table 4 comparisons.

minor comments (4)

[Figure 3] The caption states 'BLEU scores are not the accurate values, we resize them to draw the plot.' This is misleading and makes the claimed correlation unverifiable. Plot actual BLEU values or explain the normalization/axis transformation in the axis label.
[§D.3, Appendix G] Typos: 'approch' in D.3, 'fune-tuning' in G, and 'EAT w/ SFT' in Table 10 is inconsistent with 'w/ FT' used in the main text. Also, Table 15's 'Avg. second per token' values (0.026 for EAT vs 0.74 for DenKD) appear implausible for a BERT-scale model; check units and clarify that the comparison is not apples-to-apples.
[§3.1] MrCoT is described as 'several rounds,' and the prompts in Figure 7 show two rounds, but Table 13 ablates over 1, 3, and 5 rounds. Clarify how many rounds are used in the main results and specify the exact round count in the implemented EAT.
[§4.3] The text says 'a substantial improvement of 4% over SOTA,' but Table 4 shows 65.81 vs 61.21, a 4.60-point F1 difference. Use '4.6 points' to avoid confusion between relative percentage and absolute F1 difference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EAT pipeline is evaluated on external WikiANN/MultiCoNER labels, and its headline gain does not depend on the fine-tuning data.

full rationale

EAT's derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. The target-language entity spans are produced by a pipeline (forward translation Eqs. 1-3, English text-to-text NER Eq. 4, backward alignment Eqs. 5-7) whose supervision comes from English WikiANN for the extractor and from Wikipedia interlanguage links for the optional EACL fine-tuning (Eqs. 8-10); no WikiANN target-language labels are used in training. The BLEU/entropy analysis (Section 3.4, Eqs. 18-23) is descriptive and is not fitted to F1. The self-citations (e.g., Zhang et al. 2024 for the text-to-text NER formulation, and related-work self-citations in Sections 2.2-2.3) are not load-bearing: the extractor is independently trained and the dual-translation mechanism is evaluated with and without fine-tuning. The paper itself flags the real failure mode of backward alignment (Figure 5 and Limitations), which is a robustness concern rather than circularity. A data-provenance caveat exists: EACL (Section 3.2) and WikiANN both derive from Wikipedia interlanguage links, so fine-tuning data could overlap in distribution with the evaluation resource; however, EAT w/o FT already delivers the headline margin over DenKD (65.38 vs 61.21 in Table 4), so the central comparison does not reduce to the fine-tuning input. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to the quantity it is said to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on three domain assumptions about translation fidelity and Wikipedia alignment, and on three hyperparameters chosen by hand or on test data. No invented entities are needed; the EACL corpus is a dataset, not a new theoretical object.

free parameters (3)

Number of CoT rounds = 3
Ablation in Appendix D.4 (Table 13) selects 3 rounds based on test F1 on ZH and AR; 1 round is worse and 5 rounds are time-consuming and unstable, so the choice is made on test data.
QLoRA rank and scale = rank=64, scale=16
Set in implementation details (Section 4.2); not justified by an ablation, chosen by hand as reasonable adapter sizes.
Fine-tuning epochs = 5
Chosen because loss converges around 5 epochs in preliminary experiments (Appendix G); a loose convergence criterion rather than a controlled selection.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Entities in target sentences survive translation into English as recognizable named-entity spans
The forward translation (Eqs. 1-3) and backward alignment (Eqs. 5-7) rely on entities appearing in the English translation; Figure 5 shows failures when this does not hold.
domain assumption Wikipedia interlanguage links provide correct cross-lingual entity correspondences between English and the eight target languages
EACL corpora (Section 3.2) are built entirely from Interlanguage Links; any noise in these links directly mis-supervises the fine-tuning.
domain assumption An English NER extractor trained on WikiANN English transfers to LLM-translated English text
The extractor (Flan-T5-base) labels entities only on the forward translation; translationese distribution is assumed close to WikiANN English (Sections 3.1 and 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-shot Cross-lingual NER via Mitigating Language Difference: An Entity-aligned Translation Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEKXONJS

@misc{pith2026250901147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-shot Cross-lingual NER via Mitigating Language Difference: An Entity-aligned Translation Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEKXONJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01147}
}

read the original abstract

Cross-lingual Named Entity Recognition (CL-NER) aims to transfer knowledge from high-resource languages to low-resource languages. However, existing zero-shot CL-NER (ZCL-NER) approaches primarily focus on Latin script language (LSL), where shared linguistic features facilitate effective knowledge transfer. In contrast, for non-Latin script language (NSL), such as Chinese and Japanese, performance often degrades due to deep structural differences. To address these challenges, we propose an entity-aligned translation (EAT) approach. Leveraging large language models (LLMs), EAT employs a dual-translation strategy to align entities between NSL and English. In addition, we fine-tune LLMs using multilingual Wikipedia data to enhance the entity alignment from source to target languages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01147 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Two examples: German, as LSL, tends to be translated more accurately into English due to their shared lexicon, making it more suitable for NER. In contrast, Chinese, as NSL, faces inherent challenges in translation to English because of significant typological divergences. The translations are obtained by GPT-4. the source language into the same space as the target language to achieve ZCL-NER. Regarding the existing… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The overall architecture of our proposed E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The relevance of BLEU scores and entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of the NER results for T-S based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of the entity alignment process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The screenshots of the examples in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Full process of Dual Translation for ZCL-NER. Texts in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Speed of token generation on different lan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Каррингтон (Carrington) - This appears to be a person's name

work page
[2]

Каррингтон

Хиуорд (Heword/Howard) - This also appears to be a person's name, likely a misspelling or transliteration variation of "Howard." Therefore, the named entities in this sentence can be labeled as: - Каррингтон: [PERSON] - Хиуорд: [PERSON] If you need further assistance or a specific translation, feel free to let me know! User Take these entities in mind and...

work page 2024
[3]

CROP (Yang et al., 2022) leverages a se- quence translation model to operate the ZCL-NER task with a cross-lingual entity projection frame- work

work page 2022
[4]

EasyProject (Chen et al., 2023) improves mark-then-translate method to better perform trans- lation and label projection

work page 2023
[5]

Reading and Writing, 35(6):1475–1496

The influence of romanizing a non-alphabetic l1 on l2 reading: the case of hindi-english visual word recognition. Reading and Writing, 35(6):1475–1496. Quanwei Tang, Sophia Yat Mei Lee, Junshuang Wu, Dong Zhang, Shoushan Li, Erik Cambria, and Guodong Zhou. 2025. A comprehensive graph frame- work for question answering with mode-seeking pref- erence alignm...

work page 2025
[6]

DualNER (Zeng et al., 2022) proposes a unified framework that combines NER learning paradigms and applies multi-task learning for knowledge distillation

work page 2022
[7]

MSD (Ma et al., 2022) designs a multichan- nel distillation framework with a parallel domain adaptation to efficiently transfer information

work page 2022
[8]

ProKD (Ge et al., 2023) proposes prototyp- ical alignment with prototypical self-training for knowledge distillation to better acquire knowledge

work page 2023

Show all 20 references

[9]

mBert (Wu and Dredze, 2019) leverages a pre-trained model to directly transfer from source languages to target languages

2019
[10]

Awesome-align (Dou and Neubig, 2021) fine- tunes PLMs with paralleled data on source and target languages to extract label alignments

2021
[13]

Teacher-Student Framework based:

CLaP (Parekh et al., 2024) proposes contex- tual translation to better translate the labels to the target languages. Teacher-Student Framework based:

2024
[14]

TSLM (Wu et al., 2020) proposes vanilla teacher-student learning to distill knowledge for cross-lingual NER

2020
[15]

RIKD (Liang et al., 2021) proposes a teacher- student learning approach with reinforcement- learning-based knowledge distillation

2021
[16]

adversarial learning in the training process of the teacher model to denoise in knowledge distillation

AdvPicker (Chen et al., 2021) introduces 13.57 12.41 9.64 5.46 8.67 9.82 14.83 10.70 23.11 19.23 14.57 9.94 15.00 18.05 25.20 18.30 AR HI HY JA KA KO RU ZH 0 5 10 15 20 25Token / s w/o QLoRA w/ QLoRA Figure 8: Speed of token generation on different lan- guages. adversarial lea...

2021
[20]

DenKD (Ge et al., 2024) proposes a denois- ing approach using uncertainty- and discrepancy- awareness to reduce the noise in the knowledge distillation process, which is the SOTA model. D Additional Results D.1 Results on Latin Script Languages We also conduct experiments on L...

2024
[2003]

高明” in target language (Chinese) is incorrectly translated as the adjective “clever

Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142– 147. Dan Wu, Xincheng Ju, Dong Zhang, Shoushan Li, Erik Cambria, and Guodong Zhou. 202...

2003 arXiv
[2018]

WORD, 64(2):69–102

Quoting and reporting across languages: A system-based and text-based typology. WORD, 64(2):69–102. Nuo Chen, Zinan Zheng, Ning Wu, Ming Gong, Dong- mei Zhang, and Jia Li. 2024. Breaking language barriers in multilingual mathematical reasoning: In- sights and observations. In ...

2024 arXiv
[2021]

Modularized interaction network for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 59th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Confer- ence on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 200–209, Onlin...

2022 arXiv
[2022]

In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5171–5183, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Wider & closer: Mixture of short-channel dis- tillers for zero-shot cross-lingual named entity recog- nition. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5171–5183, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computatio...

2022 arXiv
[2024]

Cognition, 244:105707

Testimony and observation of statistical ev- idence interact in adults’ and children’s category- based induction. Cognition, 244:105707. Ling Ge, Chunming Hu, Guanghui Ma, Jihong Liu, and Hong Zhang. 2024. Discrepancy and uncertainty aware denoising knowledge distillation for ...

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Каррингтон (Carrington) - This appears to be a person's name

work page

[2] [2]

Каррингтон

Хиуорд (Heword/Howard) - This also appears to be a person's name, likely a misspelling or transliteration variation of "Howard." Therefore, the named entities in this sentence can be labeled as: - Каррингтон: [PERSON] - Хиуорд: [PERSON] If you need further assistance or a specific translation, feel free to let me know! User Take these entities in mind and...

work page 2024

[3] [3]

CROP (Yang et al., 2022) leverages a se- quence translation model to operate the ZCL-NER task with a cross-lingual entity projection frame- work

work page 2022

[4] [4]

EasyProject (Chen et al., 2023) improves mark-then-translate method to better perform trans- lation and label projection

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Reading and Writing, 35(6):1475–1496

The influence of romanizing a non-alphabetic l1 on l2 reading: the case of hindi-english visual word recognition. Reading and Writing, 35(6):1475–1496. Quanwei Tang, Sophia Yat Mei Lee, Junshuang Wu, Dong Zhang, Shoushan Li, Erik Cambria, and Guodong Zhou. 2025. A comprehensive graph frame- work for question answering with mode-seeking pref- erence alignm...

work page 2025

[6] [6]

DualNER (Zeng et al., 2022) proposes a unified framework that combines NER learning paradigms and applies multi-task learning for knowledge distillation

work page 2022

[7] [7]

MSD (Ma et al., 2022) designs a multichan- nel distillation framework with a parallel domain adaptation to efficiently transfer information

work page 2022

[8] [8]

ProKD (Ge et al., 2023) proposes prototyp- ical alignment with prototypical self-training for knowledge distillation to better acquire knowledge

work page 2023