Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management 2019
DOI: 10.1145/3357384.3358119
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enriching Pre-trained Language Model with Entity Information for Relation Classification

Abstract: Relation classification is an important NLP task to extract relations between entities. The state-of-the-art methods for relation classification are primarily based on Convolutional or Recurrent Neural Networks. Recently, the pre-trained BERT model achieves very successful results in many NLP classification / sequence labeling tasks. Relation classification differs from those tasks in that it relies on information of both the sentence and the two target entities. In this paper, we propose a model that both lev… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
221
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 339 publications
(225 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
221
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Table II shows that our model obtains an F1-score of 90.36%, outperforming the state-of-the-art models substantially. The best results of the CNN-based and RNN-based models range from 84% to 86%, while the recent R-BERT model proposed by Wu and He [24] obtains the best F1score of 89.25%, which has an approximately 4-point gap with previous methods. It is noteworthy that the proposed relation extraction model introducing syntactic indicators has a further performance improvement in this task.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Table II shows that our model obtains an F1-score of 90.36%, outperforming the state-of-the-art models substantially. The best results of the CNN-based and RNN-based models range from 84% to 86%, while the recent R-BERT model proposed by Wu and He [24] obtains the best F1score of 89.25%, which has an approximately 4-point gap with previous methods. It is noteworthy that the proposed relation extraction model introducing syntactic indicators has a further performance improvement in this task.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…It has been applied to multiple NLP tasks and obtains new startof-the-art results on eleven tasks, such as text classification, sequence labeling, and question answering. In recent research, Wu and He [24] propose an R-BERT model, which employs the pre-trained BERT language model and reaches the top of the leaderboard in relation extraction.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relation extraction from text is a popular task; many publications show that neural methods, particularly RNNs and LSTMs, perform substantially better than non-neural ones [8,9,11,16,18]. No such neural methods exist for relation extraction on tables, however.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We chose LSTMs because they have been shown to perform well on NLP tasks, including relation extraction from text [8,11,18], due to their ability of representing sentences based on their salient words. We used the following contextual information: the title of the section containing the table, the first paragraph in that section, the headers and the caption of the table (when present).…”
Section: Neural Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, sentence classification tasks with the original BERT model is possible by passing the sentence representation token (denoted [CLS]) through a linear layer. More recent work (specific to the task of relationship extraction) has explored how combining embedded entity information with such sentence representations can lead to significant performance boosts (the RBERT head) 10 . However, evidence has since emerged 11 that at least some of the perceived performance gains of transformer style models is due to so-called 'Clever Hans' type effects, where the model is fine-tuned to learn unintended correlations in datasets rather than a generalised representation of the task.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%