Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 39 references

A Little Annotation does a Lot of Good: A Study in Bootstrapping Low-resource Named Entity Recognizers

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Cross-lingual transfer plus targeted span annotation reaches near-supervised NER with one-tenth of the labels.

desk verdict A solid empirical recipe for low-resource NER with a genuinely new span-level active learning strategy; the headline budget numbers are imprecise, but the qualitative result holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08983 v1 pith:2EHFKSTW submitted 2019-08-23 cs.CL

Aditi Chaudhary , Jiateng Xie , Zaid Sheikh , Graham Neubig , Jaime G. Carbonell This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords low-resourcenamedentityrecognitioncross-lingualtransferlearningactiveentity-targetedannotationpartialconditionalrandomfieldsefficiencybilingualwordembeddingsbootstrapping
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 asks how to efficiently build a named entity recognizer for a language with very little labeled data. It argues that the best approach is to start with a model transferred from English and then spend the human annotation budget on only the short entity spans the model is most unsure about, rather than whole sentences. With just one-tenth of the tokens annotated, this entity-targeted active learning strategy outperforms sequence-level and span-level active learning baselines by an average of 9.9 F1, and the full recipe lands only 5.2 F1 behind a model trained on all labeled data. The authors also show through simulated and real human annotation that annotators make fewer errors and read less when asked to label a highlighted entity span than when asked to label an entire sequence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is ETAL, an entity-targeted active-learning scorer combined with partial-CRF training. ETAL computes, with the forward-backward algorithm, the marginal probability that each token begins or continues an entity, multiplies these into a span-level entity probability, and ranks candidate spans by the entropy of that probability, aggregated across the unlabeled corpus; a dynamic program keeps the span search from becoming exponential in sequence length. The resulting partially labeled sequences are trained with a constrained conditional random field that sums the likelihood over all labelings consistent with the annotated spans. A cross-lingually transferred model provides both the initial parameters and the uncertainty signal that drives selection.

What would settle it

Train ETAL's spans but weight the partial-CRF likelihood with the inverse probability of span selection, or compare ETAL against a random span sampler that is forced to select the same number and length of entities; if the F1 advantage shrinks or disappears, the reported 9.9 F1 gain is an artifact of selection bias rather than of targeting informative entities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cross-lingual transfer and targeted span-level active learning are complementary, and that combining them with a partial-CRF training objective yields near-supervised NER accuracy at a fraction of the annotation cost. Starting from an English-trained model projected to the target language through bilingual embeddings, the proposed ETAL strategy selects, across the unlabeled corpus, the entity spans whose marginal probability of being an entity is most uncertain, aggregates that uncertainty by span type, and asks humans only to label those spans. Training then uses a constrained CRF that marginalizes over unannotated tokens instead of guessing their labels. In simulated experiments ETAL beats random, confidence-field, and sequence-level baselines on all six test datasets; with one-tenth of tokens annotated the full recipe is on average 5.2 F1 below a fully supervised upper bound, and in human annotation it reaches within 2.1 F1 of full-sequence annotation while using six times fewer annotated tokens.

Load-bearing premise

The partial-CRF training objective assumes the unannotated tokens in each sequence are missing at random, but ETAL deliberately selects the spans it is most uncertain about, so the training data is a biased sample of the unlabeled corpus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one-tenth of tokens annotated, ETAL plus partial-CRF plus cross-lingual transfer beats RAND, CFEAL, and SAL baselines by an average of 9.9 F1 across the test datasets, and is only 5.2 F1 behind a model trained on all labeled data.
  • Cross-lingual transfer alone contributes an average of 8.6 F1 over no transfer at the one-tenth budget, and the untransferred system closes the gap after roughly 1000 tokens, so transfer matters most at the very start of bootstrapping.
  • Using a full CRF that fills unannotated tokens with model predictions hurts recall substantially (by 11.0 points for Hindi), so the partial-CRF objective is necessary to realize ETAL's gains.
  • Human annotators label entity spans with higher oracle agreement than when annotating full sequences, and ETAL yields competitive test F1 with about six times fewer annotated tokens, with an average gap of 2.1 F1 against full-sequence annotation.
  • Fine-tuning the transferred model on newly acquired data is generally faster and better than retraining on the concatenated corpus, though for a language close to English, corpus augmentation plus fine-tuning helps most.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the recipe generalizes, the same pattern—use transfer to get a rough model, then spend human effort only where the model is uncertain—should apply to other sparse-span sequence labeling tasks such as event extraction or grammatical error detection, not just NER; testing that would require adapting the span entropy scorer to those label sets.
  • The paper's own numbers imply that the value of cross-lingual transfer is mostly in the first few hundred tokens; beyond roughly 1000 tokens, entity-targeted annotation alone catches up, so practitioners with larger budgets might skip transfer and annotate directly.
  • Because ETAL selects spans by model uncertainty, the partial-CRF likelihood treats unannotated tokens as missing at random, an assumption the selection rule itself violates; a debiased estimator or an experiment matching random spans for entity density would reveal how much of the 9.9 F1 gain is due to span targeting versus distribution shift.
  • A practical by-product is that the same pipeline could build entity gazetteers quickly, since ETAL surfaces roughly twice as many candidate entities per annotated token as full-sequence annotation in the human study.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a bootstrapping recipe for low-resource NER: start from a cross-lingual transferred model, then iteratively select uncertain entity spans (ETAL) for annotation, and fine-tune with a partial-CRF objective. The authors report simulated active-learning experiments on six languages (Hindi, Indonesian, Spanish-LDC, Spanish-CoNLL, German, Dutch) and human annotation experiments for Hindi, Indonesian, and Spanish, comparing ETAL against sequence-level (SAL), span-level confidence (CFEAL), and random (RAND) baselines. The central quantitative claims are that with one-tenth of tokens annotated ETAL achieves on average 9.9 F1 improvement over baselines and is only 5.2 F1 behind a model trained on all labeled data.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were fully supported, this would be a useful contribution: it combines transfer learning and active learning in a practical recipe, evaluates on multiple languages including low-resource ones, includes real human annotation, and provides code and paired bootstrap significance tests. The breadth of datasets and the human-annotation experiments are particular strengths. The main caveat is that the headline numbers ('one-tenth', 9.9, 5.2) are not supported by the experimental protocol as reported, and the partial-CRF training ignores the outcome-dependent sampling introduced by ETAL. The qualitative conclusion that ETAL is competitive with fewer annotations is credible from the tables, but the paper's most visible claims need correction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3.1; Table 3] The abstract and Contribution 1 state that the method works 'with just one-tenth of training data' / 'one-tenth of tokens annotated,' but the experimental protocol never reaches this budget. Section 3.1 sets the budget at 200 tokens per active-learning run, and the final runs in Tables 11–16 annotate at most 4000 tokens (2400 for Spanish-LDC). Relative to the training-set sizes in Table 3, 4000 tokens is 8.2% of Hindi, 7.2% of Indonesian, 1.9% of German, 2.0% of Dutch, and 1.5% of Spanish-CoNLL; 2400 tokens is 7.5% of Spanish-LDC. None of the six datasets reaches 10% of training tokens, so the 'one-tenth' claim is not demonstrated. Please either extend the experiments to a 10% budget or rephrase the claim to state the actual fractions actually annotated.
  2. [§3.2.1; Tables 11–16] The claimed average improvement of 9.9 F1 is not recoverable from the reported tables. At the final run, the gap between ETAL+PARTIAL-CRF+CT and the best per-dataset baseline is about 2.2 (Hindi), 7.0 (Indonesian), 6.9 (Spanish-LDC), 4.1 (Spanish-CoNLL), 3.6 (German), and 7.5 (Dutch), averaging about 5.2 F1; no comparison in the tables yields 9.9. The per-dataset margins reported in the text (Hindi +9.3, Indonesian +9.0, Spanish-LDC +7.5, etc.) also do not match the final-run gaps; for example, the Hindi final-run gap to the best baseline is 2.2, not 9.3. The authors should specify exactly which run, which baseline, and which averaging procedure produce 9.9, or correct the number.
  3. [§3.2.1; Figure 2] The claim that the full recipe is on average only 5.2 F1 behind SUPERVISED ALL cannot be verified from the manuscript, because the SUPERVISED ALL scores appear only as horizontal lines in Figure 2 and are not tabulated anywhere. Please report the supervised-all F1 for each dataset and state the budget (for example, final run or one-tenth of tokens) at which the 5.2 gap is computed; if the comparison is at the final run, note that the final budget is not one-tenth of the training data.
  4. [§2.3.2] The partial-CRF likelihood marginalizes over unannotated tokens, which corresponds to treating them as missing at random. ETAL, however, selects spans according to the current model's uncertainty, so the annotated tokens are not a random subset: the missingness depends on model predictions and on the entity structure of the sentence. This outcome-dependent sampling is not discussed; it means the partial likelihood is misspecified for the data-generating process, and part of the gain over RAND could reflect adaptation to the selected span distribution. Because the final evaluation is on held-out test data, this does not invalidate the empirical ranking, but the authors should state the assumption and ideally add a diagnostic that matches the number or type of annotated spans across strategies to separate selection effects from the training objective.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§A.4] Appendix A.4 refers to 'Figure 4' for the confidence intervals, but the results are in Table 4; please fix the cross-reference.
  2. [§A.5] The list of entity-count tables reads 'Tables 5, 6, 7, 7, 9, 10'; the duplicate 7 should be 8.
  3. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 contains dangling pseudo-code fragments (for example, 'for i←1...len(x),j = 1 do'); please clean up the formatting so that the loop structure is clear.
  4. [§3.2] The abbreviation CFEAL is never expanded; please define it at first use (for example, confidence-field-estimation active learning).
  5. [Figure 2 and Table 1] There are typos in the figure and table captions: 'ET AL' and 'PARTI AL-CRF' should be 'ETAL' and 'PARTIAL-CRF'.
  6. [§3.3] The human annotation study uses only two annotators per language, and the Indonesian results are acknowledged to be affected by gold-label inconsistencies; the claim that annotators are more accurate under ETAL should be presented as preliminary evidence rather than a general conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical active-learning comparison evaluated on held-out test sets, and its self-citations are component inputs rather than load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

The central claim is that the proposed entity-targeted active learning strategy (ETAL) outperforms SAL, CFEAL, and RAND baselines, and that the full recipe is close to fully supervised training. This is established by simulation and human-annotation experiments on held-out CoNLL and LDC test sets, not by deriving the result from its own inputs. No parameter is fitted to the test sets, and no reported number is defined so as to make the comparison true by construction. The initial cross-lingual model is taken from Xie et al. (2018), which has overlapping authors with this paper, but it is used as a component input and its contribution is explicitly ablated (ETAL+PARTIAL-CRF vs. ETAL+PARTIAL-CRF+CT), so the self-citation is not load-bearing in the sense of substituting for evidence. The partial-CRF objective p_theta(Y_L|x) = sum_{y in Y_L} p_theta(y|x) is a standard constrained CRF likelihood cited to external prior work (Tsuboi et al. 2008; Bellare and McCallum 2007), and the entropy-based span selection is a query strategy rather than a fitted parameter masquerading as a prediction. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. The skeptic's observation that the headline 'one-tenth of tokens' and '9.9 F1' figures are not fully supported by the 200-token-run protocol is a verifiability/consistency concern about the empirical claims, not a circularity: an overstated or internally inconsistent number is not the same as a claim that reduces by construction to its inputs. Since the hard rules require exhibiting a specific equivalence or fitted-parameter-as-prediction reduction to flag circularity, and no such reduction is present, the correct finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no invented entities. The free parameters are standard hyperparameters or computational pruning choices, none fitted to the test data. The axioms are standard machine learning assumptions and the reliance on the cited transfer model.

free parameters (6)
  • Hthreshold = 1e-8
    Threshold for discarding spans with low entity probability; set for computational efficiency, not tuned. Section 2.2.
  • Maximum span length = 5
    Approximated as the 90th percentile of entity length in the English training data; bounds the span search space. Section 3.1.
  • Fine-tuning learning rate = 1e-5 for first AL run, then 0.015
    Chosen by hand; controls adaptation of the transferred model to newly annotated data. Appendix A.2.
  • BiLSTM hidden size = 200 per direction
    Standard value from Ma and Hovy (2016), not tuned per language. Appendix A.2.
  • Dropout = 0.5
    Standard regularization value chosen by hand. Appendix A.2.
  • Active learning budget per run = 200 tokens
    Incremental annotation budget set for the experimental design; affects the learning curves but not the method itself. Section 3.2.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Linear-chain CRF and the forward-backward algorithm correctly compute marginal probabilities.
    Used in Section 2.2 to compute p(y_i|x) and in Section 2.3.2 for the CRF likelihood; standard machinery.
  • domain assumption Bilingual dictionary translation from Xie et al. (2018) gives useful transferred training data.
    Used as the seed model in Section 2.1; the paper does not re-validate this component.
  • standard math Partial-CRF training (Tsuboi et al., 2008) correctly marginalizes over unlabeled tokens.
    Used in Section 2.3.2 to train on partially labeled sequences; assumes the provided span annotations are correct.
  • domain assumption The CoNLL and LDC test sets are accurate and representative of the target languages.
    The paper relies on these gold standards for evaluation; the Indonesian gold labels are noted to have inconsistencies, which adds noise to that portion of the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Little Annotation does a Lot of Good: A Study in Bootstrapping Low-resource Named Entity Recognizers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2EHFKSTW

@misc{pith2026190808983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Little Annotation does a Lot of Good: A Study in Bootstrapping Low-resource Named Entity Recognizers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2EHFKSTW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08983}
}
read the original abstract

Most state-of-the-art models for named entity recognition (NER) rely on the availability of large amounts of labeled data, making them challenging to extend to new, lower-resourced languages. However, there are now several proposed approaches involving either cross-lingual transfer learning, which learns from other highly resourced languages, or active learning, which efficiently selects effective training data based on model predictions. This paper poses the question: given this recent progress, and limited human annotation, what is the most effective method for efficiently creating high-quality entity recognizers in under-resourced languages? Based on extensive experimentation using both simulated and real human annotation, we find a dual-strategy approach best, starting with a cross-lingual transferred model, then performing targeted annotation of only uncertain entity spans in the target language, minimizing annotator effort. Results demonstrate that cross-lingual transfer is a powerful tool when very little data can be annotated, but an entity-targeted annotation strategy can achieve competitive accuracy quickly, with just one-tenth of training data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08983 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our proposed recipe: cross-lingual transfer is used for projecting annotations from an English labeled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the NER performance trained with the FineTune scheme, across six datasets. Solid lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the NER performance trained with different schemes for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Examples from Hindi human annotation experiments for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of the human annotation process for Hindi. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the NER performance trained with different schemes for the ETAL strategy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 21 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]

    Waleed Ammar, George Mulcaire, Yulia Tsvetkov, Guillaume Lample, Chris Dyer, and Noah A Smith. 2016. Massively multilingual word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.01925

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1042 Learning bilingual word embeddings with (almost) no bilingual data . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 451--462, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1042 2017

  5. [5]

    Jason Baldridge and Alexis Palmer. 2009. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D/D09/D09-1031 How well does active learning actually work? Time-based evaluation of cost-reduction strategies for language documentation. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 296--305, Singapore. Association for Computation...

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Kedar Bellare and Andrew McCallum. 2007. Learning extractors from unlabeled text using relevant databases. In Sixth international workshop on information integration on the web

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Akash Bharadwaj, David Mortensen, Chris Dyer, and Jaime Carbonell. 2016. Phonologically aware neural model for named entity recognition in low resource transfer settings. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1462--1472

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Mortensen, and Jaime Carbonell

    Aditi Chaudhary, Chunting Zhou, Lori Levin, Graham Neubig, David R. Mortensen, and Jaime Carbonell. 2018. http://aclweb.org/anthology/D18-1366 Adapting word embeddings to new languages with morphological and phonological subword representations . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3285--3295. A...

    work page 2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1171 Reading W ikipedia to answer open-domain questions . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1...

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Yukun Chen, Thomas A Lasko, Qiaozhu Mei, Joshua C Denny, and Hua Xu. 2015. A study of active learning methods for named entity recognition in clinical text. Journal of biomedical informatics, 58:11--18

    2015

  3. [11]

    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, 12(Aug):2493--2537

    2011

  4. [13]

    Alexis Conneau, Guillaume Lample, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Ludovic Denoyer, and Herv \'e J \'e gou. 2017 b . Word translation without parallel data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.04087

    2017 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Aron Culotta and Andrew McCallum. 2004. Confidence estimation for information extraction. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004: Short Papers, pages 109--112. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2004

  6. [15]

    Aron Culotta and Andrew McCallum. 2005. Reducing labeling effort for structured prediction tasks. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 5, pages 746--751

    2005

  7. [16]

    Maud Ehrmann, Marco Turchi, and Ralf Steinberger. 2011. Building a multilingual named entity-annotated corpus using annotation projection. In Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing 2011, pages 118--124

    2011

  8. [17]

    Meng Fang and Trevor Cohn. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-2093 Model transfer for tagging low-resource languages using a bilingual dictionary . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 587...

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    Dan Garrette and Jason Baldridge. 2013. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N13-1014 Learning a part-of-speech tagger from two hours of annotation . In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language...

    2013

  10. [19]

    Xianpei Han and Le Sun. 2012. An entity-topic model for entity linking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 105--115. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2012

  11. [20]

    Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical significance tests for machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing

    2004

  12. [21]

    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

  13. [22]

    Maolin Li, Nhung Nguyen, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-2314 Proactive learning for named entity recognition . In B io NLP 2017 , pages 117--125, Vancouver, Canada,. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

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

    2016 doi

  15. [24]

    Diego Marcheggiani and Thierry Artieres. 2014. An experimental comparison of active learning strategies for partially labeled sequences. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 898--906

    2014

  16. [25]

    Stephen Mayhew, Chen-Tse Tsai, and Dan Roth. 2017. Cheap translation for cross-lingual named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2536--2545

    2017

  17. [26]

    Graham Neubig, Yosuke Nakata, and Shinsuke Mori. 2011. Pointwise prediction for robust, adaptable japanese morphological analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: short papers-Volume 2, pa...

    2011

  18. [27]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532--1543

    2014

  19. [28]

    Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-1202 Deep contextualized word representations . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Assoc...

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    Lawrence R Rabiner. 1989. A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2):257--286

    1989

  21. [30]

    Burr Settles and Mark Craven. 2008. An analysis of active learning strategies for sequence labeling tasks. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1070--1079. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2008

  22. [31]

    Yanyao Shen, Hyokun Yun, Zachary Lipton, Yakov Kronrod, and Animashree Anandkumar. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-2630 Deep active learning for named entity recognition . In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP , pages 252--256, Vancouver, ...

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    Matthias Sperber, Mirjam Simantzik, Graham Neubig, Satoshi Nakamura, and Alex Waibel. 2014. Segmentation for efficient supervised language annotation with an explicit cost-utility tradeoff. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2:169--180

    2014

  24. [33]

    Tjong Kim Sang

    Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang. 2002. https://doi.org/10.3115/1118853.1118877 Introduction to the conll-2002 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition . In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning - Volume 20, COLING-02, pages 1--4, Stroudsburg, ...

    2002

  25. [34]

    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

  26. [35]

    Yuta Tsuboi, Hisashi Kashima, Hiroki Oda, Shinsuke Mori, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2008. Training conditional random fields using incomplete annotations. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 1, pages 897--904. Association for Comput...

    2008

  27. [36]

    Dittaya Wanvarie, Hiroya Takamura, and Manabu Okumura. 2011. Active learning with subsequence sampling strategy for sequence labeling tasks. Information and Media Technologies, 6(3):680--700

    2011

  28. [37]

    Smith, and Jaime Carbonell

    Jiateng Xie, Zhilin Yang, Graham Neubig, Noah A. Smith, and Jaime Carbonell. 2018. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D18-1034 Neural cross-lingual named entity recognition with minimal resources . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pr...

    2018

  29. [38]

    Mitchell

    Bishan Yang and Tom M. Mitchell. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-1033 Joint extraction of events and entities within a document context . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language...

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    David Yarowsky, Grace Ngai, and Richard Wicentowski. 2001. Inducing multilingual text analysis tools via robust projection across aligned corpora. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Human language technology research, pages 1--8. Association for Computatio...

    2001

  31. [40]

    Imed Zitouni and Radu Florian. 2008. Mention detection crossing the language barrier. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 600--609. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2008

Pith tools

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