REVIEW 1 cited by
A Unified Positive-Unlabeled Learning Framework for Document-Level Relation Extraction with Different Levels of Labeling
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Document-level relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between entities across multiple sentences. Most previous methods focused on document-level RE under full supervision. However, in real-world scenario, it is expensive and difficult to completely label all relations in a document because the number of entity pairs in document-level RE grows quadratically with the number of entities. To solve the common incomplete labeling problem, we propose a unified positive-unlabeled learning framework - shift and squared ranking loss positive-unlabeled (SSR-PU) learning. We use positive-unlabeled (PU) learning on document-level RE for the first time. Considering that labeled data of a dataset may lead to prior shift of unlabeled data, we introduce a PU learning under prior shift of training data. Also, using none-class score as an adaptive threshold, we propose squared ranking loss and prove its Bayesian consistency with multi-label ranking metrics. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves an improvement of about 14 F1 points relative to the previous baseline with incomplete labeling. In addition, it outperforms previous state-of-the-art results under both fully supervised and extremely unlabeled settings as well.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Multi-Relation Extraction in Entity Pairs using Global Context
A BERT input format that appends the head and tail entity names after the document is claimed to beat all prior document-level relation extraction systems, but the reported gains rest on misaligned evaluation protocols.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.