Modeling Named Entity Embedding Distribution into Hypersphere

Bingjie Tang; Hai Zhao; Zhuosheng Zhang; Zuchao Li

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Modeling Named Entity Embedding Distribution into Hypersphere

T0 review · 6 major / 5 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 All named entities in a language lie inside one embedding-space hypersphere, this paper claims.

desk verdict A simple, appealing hypothesis about named entities clustering in embedding space, but the evidence currently doesn't establish the strong open-definition claim; worth a serious but demanding referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01065 v1 pith:7BXPXJM6 submitted 2019-09-03 cs.CL

Zhuosheng Zhang , Bingjie Tang , Zuchao Li , Hai Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords namedentityrecognitionwordembeddingshyperspheremodelopendefinitioncross-lingualembeddingmappingWassersteinGANNERfeatureaugmentationgeometry

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 tries to establish that named entities in any language are not scattered through the word-embedding space but collected into a single hypersphere, defined by one center $C$ and one radius $R$ so that every named entity $W$ satisfies $\mathrm{Dist}(W,C) < R$. If this geometric picture is right, it gives an open, dictionary-free definition of a named entity: membership is decided by position in embedding space, not by lookup in a finite list. The paper applies the idea in two ways, by learning a transformation between embedding spaces to carry a hypersphere from one language to another, and by feeding the distance-to-center as a feature into neural named-entity recognizers, reporting consistent improvements. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's core bet to be that the spherical clustering seen in visualizations is a real property of the embedding space, not a side effect of the dictionaries used to draw it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the named-entity hypersphere, a pair $(C,R)$ in the continuous word-embedding space with the rule that a word is a named entity exactly when its Euclidean distance to $C$ is less than $R$. Two parameters replace the dictionary: $C$ locates the NE cloud, $R$ sets the threshold, and distance to $C$ provides a graded NE likelihood. The supporting machinery is the 64-D Word2Vec space in which the sphere is defined, the t-SNE visualization that motivates the shape, a Wasserstein GAN (a generative adversarial network minimizing a distributional distance) that learns a transformation matrix between embedding spaces for cross-lingual transfer, and a z-score normalization that turns the distance into a feature vector for NER models.

What would settle it

Take a held-out set of named entities not used to fit the sphere, such as surnames and registered company names from a fresh source, embed them in the same 64-D space, and count how many satisfy $\mathrm{Dist}(W,C) < R$; the claim fails if a substantial fraction of true names fall outside the sphere while frequent common nouns fall inside.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery claim is that named entities in English and Chinese word embeddings aggregate into a hypersphere and that all three studied types—person, location, organization—share one center in the projected space. The paper formalizes this as an open definition: for any named entity $W$, $\mathrm{Dist}(W,C) < R$ with Euclidean distance, and the smaller the distance the more NE-like the word is. From this it argues that a hypersphere trained once on a dictionary can stand in for the dictionary, covering unknown and newly emerging names, and that the same two-parameter object can be transported across languages via a learned linear transformation of embedding spaces. It then reports that adding a z-scored version of the distance to the center as an extra input to existing taggers improves named-entity recognition, in some cases to new state-of-the-art scores.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that all named entities, including ones never seen by the dictionary, lie inside one compact hypersphere in the embedding space, a premise supported mainly by t-SNE pictures of self-collected dictionaries and by a radius chosen through greedy search on the same dictionary used for evaluation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Named-entity membership becomes an open test: a word is a named entity if its embedding lies inside the hypersphere, with no dictionary lookup required.
NE-ness becomes graded: the closer a word's embedding is to the center, the more strongly it behaves as a named entity.
Cross-lingual named-entity discovery becomes a geometric transfer: learn one transformation between embedding spaces, apply it to the source center and radius, and the target hypersphere is determined.
Existing NER models can be augmented by concatenating the z-scored distance-to-center vector to their word representations, yielding the reported gains on English and Chinese benchmarks.
A language's named-entity resource can be stored as two vectors rather than a large dictionary, which is a lighter prior for low-resource languages.

Reading between the lines

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

If the single-sphere claim is true, embeddings of newly coined or rare names should land inside the sphere even when the names never appeared in training; this could be tested with a time-sliced corpus without any new annotation.
The paper's per-type tables show noticeably different radii, so a natural refinement is to allow each NE subtype its own center rather than one shared center; that would likely raise recall for under-represented types such as English person names.
Because the radius is tuned on the same dictionary used for evaluation, a decisive check would be to fit the sphere on one dictionary split and score it on an independent gazetteer, measuring how much the open-definition guarantee degrades.
The cross-lingual transfer could be rerun with a plain linear alignment between embedding spaces; if the transferred sphere is just as accurate, the specific GAN training is not the crucial ingredient.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper proposes that named entities in a language form a single hypersphere in word-embedding space, giving an open definition that doesn't depend on a dictionary. That idea is genuinely new in the NER literature and refreshingly simple — two parameters, Euclidean distance, and you have a geometric prior. The two applications, cross-lingual transfer via a GAN-learned transform and an extra feature for NER, are natural and cheap to test. The authors are also honest about the fragility of their dictionaries and the poor sphere-shape for German, Dutch, and Spanish; they don't hide the problem, they just drop those languages.

The central weakness is that the evidence doesn't match the strength of the claim. The visualizations are all t-SNE, and t-SNE doesn't preserve Euclidean distances or containment; a round cloud in a t-SNE plot says nothing about whether the points lie in a ball in the original 300-D or 64-D space. The quantitative evaluation is circular: the radius is chosen by greedy search to maximize F1 on the same dictionary used to compute precision and recall, so reporting how many dictionary NEs fall inside the fitted sphere overstates the model. The paper never tests generalization to held-out or newly created NEs, which is exactly the promise of an open definition. The cross-lingual results inherit the same circularity, since the source sphere is itself fitted.

The NER improvements are real but modest — fractions of a point in most cases — and some baseline numbers are unreproducible, as the authors themselves note in a footnote. So the applications demonstrate compatibility with existing systems, not a breakthrough.

Who should read this? Anyone working on gazetteer-free NER or cross-lingual transfer will find the hypothesis worth testing. It deserves a serious referee because the core question is empirical and testable, and the paper provides a clean framework to test it. But the current version needs at least: a held-out evaluation of the hypersphere, a direct distance-based check in the original space rather than t-SNE, and sensitivity analysis of the radius to dictionary size. I'd accept it for review with the expectation of major revision.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that named entities (NEs) in a language form a single hypersphere in a pretrained word-embedding space, giving an 'open definition' of NE: W is an NE if Dist(W,C)<R. The authors derive C and R from self-collected NE dictionaries, visualize NE embeddings with t-SNE, and report two applications: cross-lingual NE detection through a Wasserstein GAN linear transformation of the sphere, and NER enhancement by adding a three-dimensional hypersphere distance feature to BiLSTM-CRF-style models. The empirical sections report monolingual F1 scores, cross-lingual F-ratios, and NER results on English and Chinese benchmarks.

Significance. The potential significance is high if a universal single-sphere containment property held: it would give a two-parameter, dictionary-free NE detector and a very cheap cross-lingual transfer mechanism. The paper is also honest about the imperfection of its dictionaries and makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction (containment in a Euclidean ball). However, the evidence in the manuscript does not establish the claim: monolingual F1 values in Tables 3 and 4 are low for several types (English Total F1=0.243, Per=0.177; Chinese Per=0.176), cross-lingual F-ratios are mostly well below 1 (Table 6 Total=0.271), and the NER gains in Table 8 are negative for two of the five baselines. The central geometric claim rests on t-SNE projections and on fitting the sphere to the same dictionary on which it is evaluated, so the significance as stated is not supported. The paper's strengths are the simplicity of the formulation and the breadth of attempted evaluation, but these do not outweigh the load-bearing evaluation gaps.

major comments (6)

[Section 3.1, Tables 3 and 4] The monolingual evaluation is circular and quantitatively weak. The radius is selected by greedy F1 search on the same self-collected NE dictionary that is used as ground truth to measure F1, so the reported numbers do not estimate performance on unseen NEs; Table 3 gives English Total F1=0.243, Per=0.177, and Loc=0.203, which contradicts the claim that nearly all NEs lie inside the hypersphere. The definition of precision is also underspecified: if P is the set of dictionary NEs inside the sphere, precision is trivially 1, whereas if P is the set of all vocabulary items inside the sphere, the population over which P is computed is not described.
[Section 2, Figures 1-4] The visual evidence for the hypersphere is based on t-SNE projections. t-SNE is a nonlinear, local dimensionality-reduction method that does not preserve Euclidean distances or global containment in the original 300-D/64-D space, so a round-looking cloud in Figures 1, 3, and 4 cannot certify that the points satisfy Eq. (1)'s condition in the original space. This is a load-bearing gap because the figures are the paper's main motivation for the geometric model.
[Section 3.2, Figure 5] The transformation of the hypersphere is not mathematically justified. A general linear map M sends the source sphere {W : ||W-C||<R} to an ellipsoid, not to a sphere, unless M is orthogonal or a similarity; the paper does not state or verify any isometry property for the Wasserstein GAN transformation, so using a transformed center and radius in the target space is not equivalent to mapping the source NE region.
[Section 4.3, Tables 5 and 6] The cross-lingual experiments do not support the claim of convenient and accurate NE distribution transfer. Table 5 reports Total F-ratio=0.568 and Table 6 reports Total F-ratio=0.271 with Per F-ratio=0.183, meaning the transformed sphere is much worse than the native sphere in most settings. The sentence in this section saying that cross-lingual F1 for Locations in English is better than monolingual is inconsistent with the Loc F-ratio of 0.749 in Table 5 under the natural reading of that table, and the notation for F and R is not defined.
[Section 4.4, Table 8] The claim that the hypersphere feature substantially boosts all NER baselines is contradicted by the table: for Akbik et al., the baseline is 93.09 and the feature model is 92.72; for Devlin et al., the baseline is 92.80 and the feature model is 91.62. Because the table combines reported baselines, re-implementations, and a separate 'Our run' column, the 'state-of-the-art' conclusion is not supported.
[Section 4.4, CoNLL-2003] The hypersphere model covers only the Per, Loc, and Org types, but CoNLL-2003 includes MISC entities; the paper does not state how MISC is handled in the hypersphere feature, whose dimension is fixed at three, so the NER comparison is incompletely specified.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2] 'as described in Section .' contains a missing section number.
[Tables 5 and 6] Define the notation F, R, and F-Ratio in the captions; the current notation is not explained.
[Table 8] Clarify the relationship among 'Baseline', 'Ours (ERR)', 'Report', and 'Our run' or remove the ambiguous columns.
[Section 4.4, Eq. (4)] Specify how the z-score statistics mu and sigma are estimated (dictionary vs. full vocabulary) and whether the feature is z-scored per type or jointly.
[General] The manuscript does not state whether code, dictionaries, or embeddings are publicly available; add a reproducibility statement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Monolingual hypersphere detection F1 is an in-sample fit: radius and dimension are tuned to maximize F1 on the same NE dictionary used for the reported evaluation.

fitted input called prediction [NE Hypersphere > Monolingual Hypersphere Model; Experiment > Monolingual Hypersphere, Tables 3-4]
"Given a known NE dictionary, we evaluate the model by counting the number of NEs from the dictionary which is included in the proposed hypersphere to let the NE hypersphere play as an NE detector."

The same self-collected dictionaries in Table 1 determine the sphere parameters and provide the data for the F1 scores reported in Tables 3 and 4. The Setup section states: 'For each choice of the number of dimensions, we make a greedy parameter setting search to achieve such an aim,' and the monolingual section reports the resulting max F1-score. The containment of dictionary entries inside the fitted sphere is therefore the optimized training objective, not an independent prediction of the open definition. The paper concedes the dictionaries are 'supposed to be sufficient and accurate, though not really so,' so the fit can absorb dictionary errors, further weakening the claimed evidence.

full rationale

The central open-definition claim is partially circular. The monolingual demonstration that NEs lie in a hypersphere is evaluated by fitting the sphere's center and radius (with greedy parameter selection over dimension and radius) to the same NE dictionary used to compute Tables 3 and 4, so those F1 values are in-sample fit statistics rather than independent confirmations. This is a genuine circular step. However, the paper also contains independent content: the cross-lingual experiment evaluates a transformed source sphere against a target dictionary without fitting to it, and the NER experiments test a hypersphere-derived feature on held-out CoNLL/SIGHAN labels. Those external evaluations provide some non-circular support, though they do not by themselves certify the single-sphere open definition. The paper's own limitation statement—that the dictionaries are 'supposed to be sufficient and accurate, though not really so'—and its decision to drop the German/Dutch/Spanish experiments after attributing poor sphere shape to dictionary insufficiency are further inferential weaknesses, but they are not formal reductions. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the cited prior work is used for standard components such as word2vec, t-SNE, BiLSTM-CRF, and WGAN, not to import the hypersphere assumption. Overall, the core evidence for the dictionary-free hypersphere definition is partly constructed by fitting, so the circularity score is moderate.

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

The paper's central model depends on fitted geometric parameters (center, radius, dimension choice) rather than derived constants. No new physical or linguistic entities are introduced; the model is purely geometric. The main risk is that the fitted hypersphere is evaluated on the same dictionary used to fit it, which weakens the claimed open-definition property.

free parameters (4)

hypersphere radius R = 0.725 to 0.914 (English, per type), 0.631 to 0.822 (Chinese, per type)
Chosen by greedy search to maximize F1 on the NE dictionary itself, so the sphere is fitted to the data it is then measured against.
hypersphere center C = not reported (mean of dictionary NE embeddings)
Computed from the self-collected NE dictionary; the dictionary is incomplete and noisy, which the authors acknowledge.
embedding dimension = 64-D chosen over 16-300
Selected based on best F1 for the monolingual hypersphere detection task; a hyperparameter chosen with the evaluation metric.
z-score normalization statistics mu and sigma = not reported per dataset
Used to normalize distances into the 3-d NER feature; computed from the training data, another fitted component.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Embeddings capture semantic similarity geometrically
The paper relies on the standard word2vec assumption that similar words cluster in embedding space.
domain assumption t-SNE visualizations are representative of the true high-dimensional structure
The hypersphere pattern is inferred from 2-D/3-D t-SNE plots; t-SNE distorts global distances and can produce spurious clusters.
domain assumption NE dictionaries are 'good enough'
The paper admits English Location and Chinese Person dictionaries are poor, yet still uses them to compute centers and radii.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Named Entity Embedding Distribution into Hypersphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BXPXJM6

@misc{pith2026190901065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Named Entity Embedding Distribution into Hypersphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BXPXJM6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01065}
}

read the original abstract

This work models named entity distribution from a way of visualizing topological structure of embedding space, so that we make an assumption that most, if not all, named entities (NEs) for a language tend to aggregate together to be accommodated by a specific hypersphere in embedding space. Thus we present a novel open definition for NE which alleviates the obvious drawback in previous closed NE definition with a limited NE dictionary. Then, we show two applications with introducing the proposed named entity hypersphere model. First, using a generative adversarial neural network to learn a transformation matrix of two embedding spaces, which results in a convenient determination of named entity distribution in the target language, indicating the potential of fast named entity discovery only using isomorphic relation between embedding spaces. Second, the named entity hypersphere model is directly integrated with various named entity recognition models over sentences to achieve state-of-the-art results. Only assuming that embeddings are available, we show a prior knowledge free approach on effective named entity distribution depiction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01065 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Distributions of Chinese NE types, (a) person, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Distributions of three types of NEs in (a) En [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: NE hypersphere transformation between two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In COLING 2018, pages 1638--1649

work page 2018
[2]

Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and L \'e on Bottou. 2017. Wasserstein gan. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07875

arXiv 2017
[3]

Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2018. A robust self-learning method for fully unsupervised cross-lingual mappings of word embeddings. In ACL 2018, pages 789--798

work page 2018
[4]

Xavier Carreras, Llu \' s M \`a rquez, and Llu \' s Padr \'o . 2003. Named entity recognition for catalan using spanish resources. In EACL 2003, pages 43--50

work page 2003
[5]

Ciprian Chelba, Tomas Mikolov, Mike Schuster, Qi Ge, Thorsten Brants, Phillipp Koehn, and Tony Robinson. 2013. One billion word benchmark for measuring progress in statistical language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.3005

arXiv 2013
[6]

Wenliang Chen, Yujie Zhang, and Hitoshi Isahara. 2006. Chinese named entity recognition with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the Fifth SIGHAN Workshop, pages 118--121

work page 2006
[7]

Scott Cohen and L Guibasm. 1999. The earth mover's distance under transformation sets. In ICCV 1999, volume 2

work page 1999
[8]

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

work page 2011

Show all 41 references

[9]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

2018 arXiv
[10]

Mona Diab and Philip Resnik. 2002. An unsupervised method for word sense tagging using parallel corpora. In ACL 2002, pages 255--262

2002
[11]

Hu Ding and Jinhui Xu. 2017. FPTAS for minimizing the earth mover's distance under rigid transformations and related problems. Algorithmica, 78(3):741--770

2017
[12]

Chuanhai Dong, Jiajun Zhang, Chengqing Zong, Masanori Hattori, and Hui Di. 2016. Character-based lstm-crf with radical-level features for chinese named entity recognition. In Natural Language Understanding and Intelligent Applications, pages 239--250. Springer

2016
[13]

Zhiheng Huang, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional lstm-crf models for sequence tagging. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.01991

2015 arXiv
[14]

John Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando CN Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. ICML 2001, pages 282--289

2001
[15]

Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01360

2016 arXiv
[16]

Gang Luo, Xiaojiang Huang, Chin-Yew Lin, and Zaiqing Nie. 2015. Joint entity recognition and disambiguation. In EMNLP 2015, pages 879--888

2015
[17]

Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(85):2579--2605

2008
[18]

Stephen Mayhew, Chen-Tse Tsai, and Dan Roth. 2017. Cheap translation for cross-lingual named entity recognition. In EMNLP 2017, pages 2536--2545

2017
[19]

Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In NIPS 2013

2013
[20]

Joel Nothman, Nicky Ringland, Will Radford, Tara Murphy, and James R Curran. 2013. Learning multilingual named entity recognition from wikipedia. Artificial Intelligence, 194:151--175

2013
[21]

Xiaoman Pan, Boliang Zhang, Jonathan May, Joel Nothman, Kevin Knight, and Heng Ji. 2017. Cross-lingual name tagging and linking for 282 languages. In ACL 2017, pages 1946--1958

2017
[22]

Alexandre Passos, Vineet Kumar, and Andrew McCallum. 2014. Lexicon infused phrase embeddings for named entity resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.5367

2014 arXiv
[23]

Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. NAACL-HLT 2018, pages 2227--2237

2018
[24]

Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Michael Collins. 2016. Cross-lingual syntactic transfer with limited resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.06227

2016 arXiv
[25]

Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder

Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 1--6

2003
[26]

Miran Seok, Hye-Jeong Song, Chan-Young Park, Jong-Dae Kim, and Yu-seop Kim. 2016. Named entity recognition using word embedding as a feature. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 10(2)

2016
[27]

Jingbo Shang, Liyuan Liu, Xiang Ren, Xiaotao Gu, Teng Ren, and Jiawei Han. 2018. Learning named entity tagger using domain-specific dictionary. EMNLP 2018, pages 2054--2064

2018
[28]

Scharolta Katharina Sien c nik. 2015. Adapting word2vec to named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NODALIDA 2015), pages 239--243

2015
[29]

a ckstr \

Oscar T \"a ckstr \"o m. 2012. Nudging the envelope of direct transfer methods for multilingual named entity recognition. In NAACL-HLT 2012, pages 55--63

2012
[30]

Chen-Tse Tsai, Stephen Mayhew, and Dan Roth. 2016. Cross-lingual named entity recognition via wikification. In CoNLL 2016, pages 219--228

2016
[31]

Chen-Tse Tsai and Dan Roth. 2016. Cross-lingual wikification using multilingual embeddings. In NAACL-HLT 2016, pages 589--598

2016
[32]

Robert Voyer, Valerie Nygaard, Will Fitzgerald, and Hannah Copperman. 2010. A hybrid model for annotating named entity training corpora. In ACL 2010, pages 243--246

2010
[33]

Chunqi Wang, Wei Chen, and Bo Xu. 2017. Named entity recognition with gated convolutional neural networks. In CCL 2017, pages 110--121

2017
[34]

Mengqiu Wang and Christopher D Manning. 2013. Cross-lingual pseudo-projected expectation regularization for weakly supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.1597

2013 arXiv
[35]

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

2001
[36]

Meng Zhang, Yang Liu, Huanbo Luan, and Maosong Sun. 2017. Earth mover's distance minimization for unsupervised bilingual lexicon induction. In EMNLP 2017, pages 1934--1945

2017
[37]

Hai Zhao and Chunyu Kit. 2008. Unsupervised segmentation helps supervised learning of character tagging for word segmentation and named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Sixth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing

2008
[38]

Junsheng Zhou, Weiguang Qu, and Fen Zhang. 2013. Chinese named entity recognition via joint identification and categorization. Chinese journal of electronics, 22(2):225--230

2013
[39]

Imed Zitouni and Radu Florian. 2008. Mention detection crossing the language barrier. In EMNLP 2008, pages 600--609

2008
[40]

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...
[41]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In COLING 2018, pages 1638--1649

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and L \'e on Bottou. 2017. Wasserstein gan. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07875

arXiv 2017

[3] [3]

Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2018. A robust self-learning method for fully unsupervised cross-lingual mappings of word embeddings. In ACL 2018, pages 789--798

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Xavier Carreras, Llu \' s M \`a rquez, and Llu \' s Padr \'o . 2003. Named entity recognition for catalan using spanish resources. In EACL 2003, pages 43--50

work page 2003

[5] [5]

Ciprian Chelba, Tomas Mikolov, Mike Schuster, Qi Ge, Thorsten Brants, Phillipp Koehn, and Tony Robinson. 2013. One billion word benchmark for measuring progress in statistical language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.3005

arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

Wenliang Chen, Yujie Zhang, and Hitoshi Isahara. 2006. Chinese named entity recognition with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the Fifth SIGHAN Workshop, pages 118--121

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Scott Cohen and L Guibasm. 1999. The earth mover's distance under transformation sets. In ICCV 1999, volume 2

work page 1999

[8] [8]

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

work page 2011