Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2015
DOI: 10.18653/v1/d15-1104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Joint Entity Recognition and Disambiguation

Abstract: Extracting named entities in text and linking extracted names to a given knowledge base are fundamental tasks in applications for text understanding. Existing systems typically run a named entity recognition (NER) model to extract entity names first, then run an entity linking model to link extracted names to a knowledge base. NER and linking models are usually trained separately, and the mutual dependency between the two tasks is ignored. We propose JERL, Joint Entity Recognition and Linking, to jointly model… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
164
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 257 publications
(175 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
2
164
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such named entities (including several polysemy) in the training set, development set, and test set reach relatively high percentage of respective 6.9%, 4.4%, and 6.5%. The inconsistent annotation and inconsistent tag assignment may be able to explain why most state-of-the-art NER methods achieve the F 1 at around 94.5% on the development set and around 91.5% on the test set [12,20,24,25,29,33,46], and why more than 10 years' effort improves the F 1 by only 0.8% on the development set (from 2003's 93.9% [16] to current 94.7% [25]) and by only 2.9% on the test set (from 2003's 88.7% [16] to current 91.6% [12]). The two inconsistency problems seem to limit the upper bound of the performance on development set at near 94.5% and the one on test set at near 91.5%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such named entities (including several polysemy) in the training set, development set, and test set reach relatively high percentage of respective 6.9%, 4.4%, and 6.5%. The inconsistent annotation and inconsistent tag assignment may be able to explain why most state-of-the-art NER methods achieve the F 1 at around 94.5% on the development set and around 91.5% on the test set [12,20,24,25,29,33,46], and why more than 10 years' effort improves the F 1 by only 0.8% on the development set (from 2003's 93.9% [16] to current 94.7% [25]) and by only 2.9% on the test set (from 2003's 88.7% [16] to current 91.6% [12]). The two inconsistency problems seem to limit the upper bound of the performance on development set at near 94.5% and the one on test set at near 91.5%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the basis of the CoNLL-2003 [15] English dataset, we evaluated the effects of the character learning components of the model and compared them with those obtained by Chiu and Nichols [7], Luo et al [26], Lample et al [8], and Ma and Hovy [9]. Other models were also compared.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This avenue has recently been explored by Durrett and Klein [2], Luo et al [14] and Nguyen et al [18]. Consistently, these approaches extend conditional random fields (CRF; [10]) which constitute the state-of-the-art in named entity recognition.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%