Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Federated Incremental Named Entity Recognition

T0 review · 4 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 new training scheme lets federated named-entity-recognition systems keep learning new entity types without forgetting old ones, all without sharing private data.

desk verdict FINER setup is a genuine new problem and LGFD shows real gains; the task switching monitor is the load-bearing but least-tested piece, and the paper contradicts itself on the stored teacher. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11623 v3 pith:3TVS7CJP submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CL

Duzhen Zhang , Yahan Yu , Chenxing Li , Jiahua Dong , Dong Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords federatedlearningincrementalnamedentityrecognitioncatastrophicforgettingknowledgedistillationcontrastivepseudo-labelingtaskswitchingmonitortypedrift
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

This paper defines Federated Incremental NER (FINER), a realistic setting where local clients continuously receive new entity types while new clients join, old training data is unavailable, and data distributions differ across clients. It claims that forgetting in this setting can be countered by a Local-Global Forgetting Defense (LGFD) model, built from three components: structural knowledge distillation over SVD-projected feature subspaces, pseudo-label-guided inter-type contrastive learning, and a task switching monitor that detects new entity types from local prediction entropy. On the I2B2 and OntoNotes5 datasets, across four FINER settings, LGFD outperforms prior incremental NER methods combined with federated learning, with gains up to 8.99 Micro-F1 points over the strongest baseline. If the claim holds, privacy-preserving NER systems can keep adapting to new entity types over time without retraining from scratch or exposing raw data.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a three-loss objective plus a privacy-safe monitor. A structural knowledge distillation loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{SKD}}$ applies SVD to hidden-state partitions and matches the resulting subspace structures between old and new models. A pseudo-label-guided inter-type contrastive loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ITC}}$ compares entity-type prototypes computed from old and new hidden states, with pseudo-labels supplied by a confidence-based strategy from the old model. The task switching monitor computes the averaged prediction entropy $I_{m}^{r,t}$ on a client's local data each round and declares a task switch when $I_{m}^{r,t} - I_{m}^{r-1,t} \ge 0.6$, at which point the latest global model is stored as the teacher for distillation and pseudo-labeling.

What would settle it

Run a FINER experiment where a new entity type is introduced whose tokens the old model already predicts with low entropy, so the averaged entropy gap never reaches 0.6 while forgetting still occurs; if task switches are missed and final F1 degrades, the monitor assumption is falsified. Alternatively, inject noisy rounds into the local data and check whether false entropy jumps above 0.6 store an outdated teacher and reduce final performance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that heterogeneous forgetting in FINER—old entity types fading inside each client and across clients—can be mitigated without the server knowing when or which clients receive new entity types. The model achieves this by distilling the geometric structure of hidden representations rather than raw features, by using confident pseudo-labels from the old model to re-label old entity types hidden inside the current non-entity class and then contrasting their prototypes, and by monitoring a local entropy jump to decide when a task switch occurred, storing the last global model as the teacher. Across four settings, this design yields the new state of the art in final average Micro-F1 and Macro-F1 scores compared with prior INER methods combined with federated learning.

Load-bearing premise

The monitor assumes that the arrival of new entity types always produces a sharp increase in a client's averaged prediction entropy of at least 0.6, so a noisy round or a subtle type change can make it store the wrong old model and break the whole defense.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The FINER setup provides a shared benchmark for future work on dynamically evolving federated NER, including new clients joining irregularly.
  • SVD-based structural distillation is shown, by ablation, to preserve old knowledge better than vanilla feature distillation.
  • Pseudo-label-guided prototype contrast improves discrimination among entity types after the non-entity class has absorbed old and future types.
  • LGFD remains stable under random permutations of entity type order, not just the alphabetical order used in the main experiments.
  • The full defense requires only per-client entropy statistics on the server, so no private ground-truth labels or task schedules are communicated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fixed entropy threshold of 0.6 is likely to need adaptation across domains and model scales, since prediction entropy scales with label-set size and confidence calibration.
  • A testable extension is to replace the hard threshold with a client-specific or adaptive detector, using e.g. relative entropy growth or change-point detection on the monitored signal.
  • Because the monitor's stored old model drives both distillation and pseudo-labeling, a single false switch or missed switch should degrade all downstream gains; measuring this sensitivity is a natural stress test.
  • The method's reliance on confident pseudo-labels suggests it may benefit from calibration or rejection rules when old-model predictions are systematically overconfident on new entity types.
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. The paper defines Federated Incremental NER (FINER), a setting in which local clients receive new entity types incrementally and new clients may join the federated training process, and proposes a Local-Global Forgetting Defense (LGFD) model. The method combines a structural knowledge distillation loss (LSKD), a pseudo-label-guided inter-type contrastive loss (LITC), and a task switching monitor that detects new entity types from average-entropy jumps and stores a global old model as a teacher for distillation and pseudo-labeling. Experiments on I2B2 and OntoNotes5 under four settings (8-1, 8-2, 10-1, 10-2) report consistent improvements in average Mi-F1 and Ma-F1 over INER baselines, with ablations showing both LSKD and LITC contribute, and a robustness experiment over 10 random entity-type orders.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper introduces a practical and timely benchmark and a method that outperforms prior INER approaches under a federated, privacy-preserving incremental regime. The manuscript has notable strengths: the code is released, the experiments cover multiple settings and datasets, ablations isolate the main loss components, and the random-order analysis addresses an important robustness concern. However, the empirical claim is conditional on the task switching monitor, which is load-bearing but never directly validated, and on resolving an internal inconsistency about which checkpoint is stored as the old teacher. The significance of the contribution is therefore real but currently under-supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-C vs. Algorithm 1] Section IV-C states that the monitor should store the latest global model Theta^{r-1,t} from the (r-1)-th global round as the old model Theta^{t-1}, while Algorithm 1 explicitly stores the just-received Theta^{r,t} as the old model. These are different checkpoints, and the stored model is the teacher for LSKD, LITC, and pseudo-labeling. The manuscript must specify which checkpoint is actually used, correct the algorithm or text accordingly, and confirm that the reported results correspond to the corrected implementation.
  2. [Section IV-C, Eq. (8)] The task switching monitor is never validated as a detector. The paper reports no precision, recall, detection delay, or threshold sensitivity for the entropy-jump criterion I^{r,t}_m - I^{r-1,t}_m >= lambda with lambda=0.6, even though misses and false alarms directly corrupt the stored old model used by LSKD, LITC, and pseudo-labeling. Moreover, the experiments in Section V.B use alphabetical entity orders and add exactly 4 new clients per task, so neither irregular client arrival nor irregular switch timing is exercised. Please add (i) monitor precision/recall against oracle switch times, (ii) a lambda sweep, (iii) an ablation that bypasses the monitor with oracle old-model selection, and (iv) at least one setting with irregular arrival schedules.
  3. [Eq. (2), LSKD] The structural knowledge distillation loss compares left singular vectors U from SVD of old and current hidden states via MSE. SVD singular vectors are determined only up to sign (and up to rotation for repeated singular values), so MSE(U^{t-1}, U^t) is not a well-defined subspace distance unless signs are aligned. No sign alignment or projection-based formulation is described. Since the ablation in Table VI shows that replacing LSKD with LFD hurts performance, this issue is load-bearing; the authors should address it, for example by comparing projection matrices UU^T or by using a sign-invariant distance.
  4. [Section V.C and V.E] The paper reports that each experiment is run 3 times with 3 seeds, but Tables II-V contain only averaged numbers with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or per-seed results. The paired t-test at a 0.05 significance level is therefore based on n=3, and the significance markers (†, ‡, ♮) cannot be properly assessed without variance information. Figure 4 shows boxplots over 10 entity-type orders but does not clarify whether the boxplots aggregate over seeds or orders. Please provide per-seed results or error bars and a precise description of how the paired t-test was computed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-A] The role of newly joined clients S_n in Equation (7) is unclear: the text includes S_n in the set of clients using the old global model for LSKD and LITC, but new clients have no prior local tasks and may not have a meaningful old model Theta^{t-1}. Please clarify what the old model is for these clients.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The confidence threshold alpha_e is mentioned in the text but never defined precisely; please specify how the median entropy is computed and over which set of tokens or entity types.
  3. [Table VII] The sensitivity analysis covers only lambda_1. Given that the monitor threshold lambda is a load-bearing hyperparameter, please add sensitivity experiments for lambda and preferably also for lambda_2 and G.
  4. [Algorithm 1] The case Task=False is not explicit in Algorithm 1; please clarify whether the local update then uses Equation (7) without the old-model losses or uses a different objective.
  5. [Section II.C heading] The heading 'Language Language Models' appears to be a typo and should read 'Large Language Models'.
  6. [Figure 4] The caption of Figure 4 should state whether the boxplots are computed over the 10 random orders, over the 3 seeds, or over both, and should define the boxes and whiskers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central result is an empirical benchmark comparison, with only incidental self-citation that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main claim—that LGFD improves average Mi-F1/Ma-F1 over prior INER methods on I2B2 and OntoNotes5—is evaluated on external benchmarks and does not reduce to any fitted parameter or self-defined quantity. LSKD (Eq. 2), LITC (Eq. 6), and the overall objective (Eq. 7) are new combinations of distillation and contrastive losses; their inputs (old and current hidden states, pseudo-labels from Eq. 3) are not the outputs being predicted. The task switching monitor (Eq. 8) uses an entropy-jump threshold lambda=0.6; this is an empirically set hyperparameter, and while its precision/recall and threshold sensitivity are not reported (a correctness-risk limitation, together with the Section IV-C vs. Algorithm 1 inconsistency over whether Theta^{r-1,t} or Theta^{r,t} is stored as the old model), no experimental result is constructed so that the entropy jump itself defines the reported F1. The comparison baseline CPFD [12] is the authors' prior work, and the pseudo-labeling strategy is adopted from it, but CPFD is externally published and is used as a baseline rather than as the justification for the claimed gains. Thus there is no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-chain circularity warranting a score above 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new theoretical entities, but it depends on several free hyperparameters and domain assumptions about the reliability of entropy-based detection and the transferability of the old model. The most consequential is the entropy threshold because the entire anti-forgetting mechanism hinges on correct task switch detection.

free parameters (4)
  • entropy threshold lambda = 0.6
    Used in the task switching monitor (Section IV-C) to detect new entity types. Set empirically with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • SKD weight lambda1 = 2
    Trade-off hyper-parameter in the total loss (Equation 7). Sensitivity analysis on the I2B2 8-2 setting shows stability around 2.0.
  • ITC weight lambda2 = 0.02
    Trade-off hyper-parameter in the total loss (Equation 7). No sensitivity analysis is reported for this parameter.
  • feature groups G = 12
    Number of groups for partitioning features before SVD in Equation (2). Chosen as a default with no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A sudden increase in average prediction entropy indicates the arrival of new entity types.
    The task switching monitor (Section IV-C) relies on this to trigger when to store the old model as a teacher for distillation and pseudo-labeling.
  • domain assumption The old global model provides reliable pseudo-labels and feature structures for new local clients and new tasks.
    Both SKD and ITC losses (Equation 7) assume the old model is a good teacher even for clients whose data distributions are Non-IID and potentially unfamiliar.
  • standard math The greedy sampling algorithm from CFNER produces valid disjoint task slices.
    Used to construct incremental training tasks in Section V-A. The algorithm is referenced but not defined in this paper, so correctness is taken from the cited prior work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated Incremental Named Entity Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TVS7CJP

@misc{pith2026241111623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated Incremental Named Entity Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TVS7CJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11623}
}
read the original abstract

Federated Named Entity Recognition (FNER) boosts model training within each local client by aggregating the model updates of decentralized local clients, without sharing their private data. However, existing FNER methods assume fixed entity types and local clients in advance, leading to their ineffectiveness in practical applications. In a more realistic scenario, local clients receive new entity types continuously, while new local clients collecting novel data may irregularly join the global FNER training. This challenging setup, referred to here as Federated Incremental NER, renders the global model suffering from heterogeneous forgetting of old entity types from both intra-client and inter-client perspectives. To overcome these challenges, we propose a Local-Global Forgetting Defense (LGFD) model. Specifically, to address intra-client forgetting, we develop a structural knowledge distillation loss to retain the latent space's feature structure and a pseudo-label-guided inter-type contrastive loss to enhance discriminative capability over different entity types, effectively preserving previously learned knowledge within local clients. To tackle inter-client forgetting, we propose a task switching monitor that can automatically identify new entity types under privacy protection and store the latest old global model for knowledge distillation and pseudo-labeling. Experiments demonstrate significant improvement of our LGFD model over comparison methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exemplary FINER setup for medical NER. Multiple medical platforms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our proposed LGFD model. It contains a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of semantic shift of the non-entity type. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The boxplots display the final average Mi-F1 and Ma-F1 scores across all tasks for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” in Artificial intelligence and statistics . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1273– 1282

    2017

  2. [2]

    Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learn- ing,

    S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learn- ing,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 5132–5143

    2020

  3. [3]

    FedNER: Privacy-preserving Medical Named Entity Recognition with Federated Learning

    S. Ge, F. Wu, C. Wu, T. Qi, Y . Huang, and X. Xie, “Fedner: Privacy- preserving medical named entity recognition with federated learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.09288 , 2020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    A federated adversarial learning method for biomedical named entity recognition,

    H. Zhao, S. Yuan, N. Xie, J. Leng, and G. Wang, “A federated adversarial learning method for biomedical named entity recognition,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). IEEE, 2021, pp. 2962–2969

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Rational drug repositioning by medical genetics,

    Z.-Y . Wang and H.-Y . Zhang, “Rational drug repositioning by medical genetics,” Nature biotechnology, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1080–1082, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Recognizing clinical entities in hospital discharge summaries using Structural Support Vector Machines with word representation features,

    B. Tang, H. Cao, Y . Wu, M. Jiang, and H. Xu, “Recognizing clinical entities in hospital discharge summaries using Structural Support Vector Machines with word representation features,” in BMC medical informat- ics and decision making , vol. 13, no. 1. BioMed Central, 2013, pp. 1–10

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Catastrophic interference in con- nectionist networks: The sequential learning problem,

    M. McCloskey and N. J. Cohen, “Catastrophic interference in con- nectionist networks: The sequential learning problem,” Psychology of learning and motivation , vol. 24, pp. 109–165, 1989

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Catastrophic forgetting, rehearsal and pseudorehearsal,

    A. Robins, “Catastrophic forgetting, rehearsal and pseudorehearsal,” Connection Science, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 123–146, 1995

    1995

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks,

    I. J. Goodfellow, M. Mirza, D. Xiao, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6211 , 2013. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 11

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks,

    J. Kirkpatrick, R. Pascanu, N. Rabinowitz, J. Veness, G. Desjardins, A. A. Rusu, K. Milan, J. Quan, T. Ramalho, A. Grabska-Barwinska et al. , “Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks,” Pro- ceedings of the national academy of sciences , vol. 114, no. 13, pp. 3521...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Task relation distillation and prototypical pseudo label for incremental named entity recognition,

    D. Zhang, H. Li, W. Cong, R. Xu, J. Dong, and X. Chen, “Task relation distillation and prototypical pseudo label for incremental named entity recognition,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , 2023, pp. 3319–3329

    2023

  4. [12]

    Continual Named Entity Recognition without Catastrophic Forgetting,

    D. Zhang, W. Cong, J. Dong, Y . Yu, X. Chen, Y . Zhang, and Z. Fang, “Continual Named Entity Recognition without Catastrophic Forgetting,” in The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Continual learning for named entity recognition,

    N. Monaikul, G. Castellucci, S. Filice, and O. Rokhlenko, “Continual learning for named entity recognition,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, no. 15, 2021, pp. 13 570– 13 577

    2021

  6. [14]

    More effective distributed ml via a stale synchronous parallel parameter server,

    Q. Ho, J. Cipar, H. Cui, S. Lee, J. K. Kim, P. B. Gibbons, G. A. Gibson, G. Ganger, and E. P. Xing, “More effective distributed ml via a stale synchronous parallel parameter server,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 26, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications,

    Q. Yang, Y . Liu, T. Chen, and Y . Tong, “Federated machine learning: Concept and applications,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–19, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network,

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, “Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Workshop, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Bayesian nonparametric federated learning of neural networks,

    M. Yurochkin, M. Agarwal, S. Ghosh, K. Greenewald, N. Hoang, and Y . Khazaeni, “Bayesian nonparametric federated learning of neural networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2019, pp. 7252–7261

    2019

  10. [18]

    Federated learning with matched averaging,

    H. Wang, M. Yurochkin, Y . Sun, D. Papailiopoulos, and Y . Khazaeni, “Federated learning with matched averaging,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Personalized federated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic meta-learning approach,

    A. Fallah, A. Mokhtari, and A. Ozdaglar, “Personalized federated learning with theoretical guarantees: A model-agnostic meta-learning approach,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 3557–3568, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Achieving linear speedup with partial worker participation in non-IID federated learning,

    H. Yang, M. Fang, and J. Liu, “Achieving linear speedup with partial worker participation in non-IID federated learning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Fedbn: Federated learning on non-iid features via local batch normalization,

    X. Li, M. Jiang, X. Zhang, M. Kamp, and Q. Dou, “Fedbn: Federated learning on non-iid features via local batch normalization,” in Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Fed- erated adversarial debiasing for fair and transferable representations,

    J. Hong, Z. Zhu, S. Yu, Z. Wang, H. H. Dodge, and J. Zhou, “Fed- erated adversarial debiasing for fair and transferable representations,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , 2021, pp. 617–627

    2021

  15. [23]

    On the convergence of federated optimization in heterogeneous net- works,

    A. K. Sahu, T. Li, M. Sanjabi, M. Zaheer, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “On the convergence of federated optimization in heterogeneous net- works,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06127 , vol. 3, p. 3, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Federated learning of deep networks using model averaging,

    H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, and B. A. y Arcas, “Federated learning of deep networks using model averaging,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05629, vol. 2, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Communication-Efficient Federated Deep Learning With Layerwise Asynchronous Model Update and Temporally Weighted Aggregation,

    Y . Chen, X. Sun, and Y . Jin, “Communication-Efficient Federated Deep Learning With Layerwise Asynchronous Model Update and Temporally Weighted Aggregation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 4229–4238, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    DATA: Differentiable architecture approximation with distribution guided sampling,

    X. Zhang, J. Chang, Y . Guo, G. Meng, S. Xiang, Z. Lin, and C. Pan, “DATA: Differentiable architecture approximation with distribution guided sampling,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI), vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 2905–2920, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Federated learning in named entity recognition,

    E. Luboshnikov and I. Makarov, “Federated learning in named entity recognition,” in Recent Trends in Analysis of Images, Social Networks and Texts: 9th International Conference, AIST 2020, Skolkovo, Moscow, Russia, October 15–16, 2020 Revised Supplementary Proceedings 9 . Spri...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Federated named entity recognition,

    J. Mathew, D. Stripelis, and J. L. Ambite, “Federated named entity recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15101 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    FLightNER: A Federated Learning Approach to Lightweight Named-Entity Recognition,

    M. Abadeer, W. Shi, and J.-P. Corriveau, “FLightNER: A Federated Learning Approach to Lightweight Named-Entity Recognition,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Com- puting and Communications (TrustCom) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 687–694

    2022

  22. [30]

    Federated Domain Adaptation for Named Entity Recogni- tion via Distilling with Heterogeneous Tag Sets,

    R. Wang, T. Yu, J. Wu, H. Zhao, S. Kim, R. Zhang, S. Mitra, and R. Henao, “Federated Domain Adaptation for Named Entity Recogni- tion via Distilling with Heterogeneous Tag Sets,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , 2023, pp. 7449– 7463

    2023

  23. [31]

    Federated Class-Incremental Learning,

    J. Dong, L. Wang, Z. Fang, G. Sun, S. Xu, X. Wang, and Q. Zhu, “Federated Class-Incremental Learning,” in CVPR, June 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Federated Incremental Semantic Segmentation,

    J. Dong, D. Zhang, Y . Cong, W. Cong, H. Ding, and D. Dai, “Federated Incremental Semantic Segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 3934–3943

    2023

  25. [33]

    No One Left Behind: Real-World Federated Class-Incremental Learning,

    J. Dong, H. Li, Y . Cong, G. Sun, Y . Zhang, and L. Van Gool, “No One Left Behind: Real-World Federated Class-Incremental Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 2054–2070, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    End-to-end Sequence Labeling via Bi-directional LSTM-CNNs-CRF,

    X. Ma and E. Hovy, “End-to-end Sequence Labeling via Bi-directional LSTM-CNNs-CRF,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2016, pp. 1064–1074

    2016

  27. [35]

    A survey on deep learning for named entity recognition,

    J. Li, A. Sun, J. Han, and C. Li, “A survey on deep learning for named entity recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 50–70, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Neural Architectures for Named Entity Recognition,

    G. Lample, M. Ballesteros, S. Subramanian, K. Kawakami, and C. Dyer, “Neural Architectures for Named Entity Recognition,” in NAACL HLT 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Die...

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding,

    J. D. M.-W. C. Kenton and L. K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding,” in Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2019, pp. 4171–4186

    2019

  30. [38]

    Decomposing Logits Dis- tillation for Incremental Named Entity Recognition,

    D. Zhang, Y . Yu, F. Chen, and X. Chen, “Decomposing Logits Dis- tillation for Incremental Named Entity Recognition,” in Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2023, pp. 1919–1923

    2023

  31. [39]

    PackNet: Adding Multiple Tasks to a Single Network by Iterative Pruning,

    A. Mallya and S. Lazebnik, “PackNet: Adding Multiple Tasks to a Single Network by Iterative Pruning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learning,

    D. Lopez-Paz and M. A. Ranzato, “Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I. Guyon, U. V . Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, Eds., vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    How to Continually Adapt Text-to-Image Diffusion Models for Flexible Customization?

    J. Dong, W. Liang, H. Li, D. Zhang, M. Cao, H. Ding, S. Khan, and F. Khan, “How to Continually Adapt Text-to-Image Diffusion Models for Flexible Customization?” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Learning “O

    R. Ma, X. Chen, Z. Lin, X. Zhou, J. Wang, T. Gui, Q. Zhang, X. Gao, and Y . W. Chen, “Learning “O” Helps for Learning More: Handling the Unlabeled Entity Problem for Class-incremental NER,” in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguist...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Incremental Sequence Labeling: A Tale of Two Shifts,

    S. Qiu, J. Zheng, Z. Liu, Y . Luo, and Q. Ma, “Incremental Sequence Labeling: A Tale of Two Shifts,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10447, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Flexible Weight Tuning and Weight Fusion Strategies for Continual Named Entity Recognition,

    Y . Yu, D. Zhang, X. Chen, and C. Chu, “Flexible Weight Tuning and Weight Fusion Strategies for Continual Named Entity Recognition,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 , 2024, pp. 1351–1358

    2024

  37. [45]

    Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks,

    R. M. French, “Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks,” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 128–135, 1999

    1999

  38. [46]

    Mea- suring catastrophic forgetting in neural networks,

    R. Kemker, M. McClure, A. Abitino, T. Hayes, and C. Kanan, “Mea- suring catastrophic forgetting in neural networks,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Learn and Review: Enhancing Continual Named Entity Recognition via Reviewing Synthetic Samples,

    Y . Xia, Q. Wang, Y . Lyu, Y . Zhu, W. Wu, S. Li, and D. Dai, “Learn and Review: Enhancing Continual Named Entity Recognition via Reviewing Synthetic Samples,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022 , 2022, pp. 2291–2300

    2022

  40. [48]

    Distilling Causal Effect from Miscellaneous Other-Class for Continual Named Entity Recognition,

    J. Zheng, Z. Liang, H. Chen, and Q. Ma, “Distilling Causal Effect from Miscellaneous Other-Class for Continual Named Entity Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Palm 2 technical report,

    R. Anil, A. M. Dai, O. Firat, M. Johnson, D. Lepikhin, A. Passos, S. Shakeri, E. Taropa, P. Bailey, Z. Chenet al., “Palm 2 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mm-llms: Recent advances in multimodal large language models,

    D. Zhang, Y . Yu, J. Dong, C. Li, D. Su, C. Chu, and D. Yu, “Mm-llms: Recent advances in multimodal large language models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 , 2024, pp. 12 401–12 430. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 12

    2024

  44. [52]

    Llms for knowledge graph construction and reasoning: Recent capabilities and future opportunities,

    Y . Zhu, X. Wang, J. Chen, S. Qiao, Y . Ou, Y . Yao, S. Deng, H. Chen, and N. Zhang, “Llms for knowledge graph construction and reasoning: Recent capabilities and future opportunities,” World Wide Web, vol. 27, no. 5, p. 58, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    What Does BERT Look at? An Analysis of BERT’s Attention,

    K. Clark, U. Khandelwal, O. Levy, and C. D. Manning, “What Does BERT Look at? An Analysis of BERT’s Attention,” inProceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP , 2019, pp. 276–286

    2019

  46. [54]

    Adaptive subspaces for few-shot learning,

    C. Simon, P. Koniusz, R. Nock, and M. Harandi, “Adaptive subspaces for few-shot learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 4136–4145

    2020

  47. [55]

    Subspace distillation for continual learning,

    K. Roy, C. Simon, P. Moghadam, and M. Harandi, “Subspace distillation for continual learning,” Neural Networks, vol. 167, pp. 65–79, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Serving the enterprise and beyond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2),

    S. N. Murphy, G. Weber, M. Mendis, V . Gainer, H. C. Chueh, S. Churchill, and I. Kohane, “Serving the enterprise and beyond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2),” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 124– 130, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    OntoNotes: the 90% solution,

    E. Hovy, M. Marcus, M. Palmer, L. Ramshaw, and R. Weischedel, “OntoNotes: the 90% solution,” in Proceedings of the human language technology conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers, 2006, pp. 57–60

    2006

  50. [58]

    Statistical significance tests for machine translation evalua- tion,

    P. Koehn, “Statistical significance tests for machine translation evalua- tion,” in Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2004, pp. 388–395

    2004

  51. [59]

    PODNet: Pooled Outputs Distillation for Small-Tasks Incremental Learning,

    A. Douillard, M. Cord, C. Ollion, T. Robert, and E. Valle, “PODNet: Pooled Outputs Distillation for Small-Tasks Incremental Learning,” in Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XX , 2020, pp. 86–102

    2020

  52. [60]

    Learning a Unified Classifier Incrementally via Rebalancing,

    S. Hou, X. Pan, C. C. Loy, Z. Wang, and D. Lin, “Learning a Unified Classifier Incrementally via Rebalancing,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019, Long Beach, CA, USA, June 16-20, 2019 , 2019, pp. 831–839

    2019

  53. [61]

    Continual learning: A comparative study on how to defy forgetting in classification tasks,

    M. D. Lange, R. Aljundi, M. Masana, S. Parisot, X. Jia, A. Leonardis, G. G. Slabaugh, and T. Tuytelaars, “Continual learning: A comparative study on how to defy forgetting in classification tasks,” CoRR, vol. abs/1909.08383, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Semi-Supervised Self-Training of Object Detection Models,

    C. Rosenberg, M. Hebert, and H. Schneiderman, “Semi-Supervised Self-Training of Object Detection Models,” in 7th IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision / IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing (WACV/MOTION 2005), 5-7 January 2005, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 2005, pp. 29–36

    2005

  55. [63]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al. , “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  56. [64]

    Huggingface’s trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language processing,

    T. Wolf, L. Debut, V . Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz et al., “Huggingface’s trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language processing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771, 2019. Duzhen Zhang received his B.Sc. degree from Sh...

    1910 arXiv

  57. [2024]

    Before that, he received the B.S

    He visited the Computer Vision Lab, ETH Zurich, Switzerland from April 2022 to August 2022, and Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Germany from September 2022 to January 2023. Before that, he received the B.S. degree from Jilin University in 2017. His current research inter...

    2022

Pith tools

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