CoNLL#: Fine-grained Error Analysis and a Corrected Test Set for CoNLL-03 English
0
🔎
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Researchers conducted a fine-grained error analysis of the CoNLL-03 English named entity recognition (NER) dataset.
- They identified errors in the test set and created a new corrected version.
- The paper discusses the implications of these findings for NER systems and the use of the CoNLL-03 dataset.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers looked closely at the CoNLL-03 English named entity recognition dataset. This dataset is commonly used to train and evaluate NER systems, which are AI models that can identify and classify named entities (like people, organizations, and locations) in text.
The researchers found that the original test set for this dataset contained some errors. For example, some named entities were not properly labeled or were missing entirely. This means the test set did not accurately reflect the true performance of NER systems.
To address this, the researchers created a new, corrected version of the CoNLL-03 English test set. This improved version should provide a more reliable way to evaluate the performance of NER models.
The paper discusses how these findings have implications for the development and use of NER systems. Researchers and practitioners need to be aware of potential issues with common benchmark datasets like CoNLL-03. Carefully curating and validating test sets is crucial for getting accurate assessments of model performance.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a fine-grained error analysis of the CoNLL-03 English NER dataset. They manually inspected a sample of the dataset's test set and identified several types of errors, such as missing named entities, incorrectly labeled entities, and inconsistencies in entity boundaries.
Based on these findings, the researchers created a new corrected version of the CoNLL-03 English test set. This involved fixing the identified errors and validating the annotations. The researchers then evaluated several state-of-the-art NER models on both the original and corrected test sets.
The results show that the performance of these NER models drops significantly when evaluated on the corrected test set compared to the original. This indicates that the original test set did not accurately reflect the true capabilities of the models.
The researchers discuss the implications of these findings for the development and use of NER systems. They emphasize the importance of carefully curating and validating benchmark datasets, as issues with the test set can lead to inflated performance metrics and skew the development of NER models.
Critical Analysis
The researchers provide a thorough and well-documented analysis of the errors in the CoNLL-03 English NER dataset. Their methodology for identifying and correcting these issues is sound, and the resulting corrected test set should provide a more reliable benchmark for evaluating NER systems.
However, the paper does not address the potential causes of the errors in the original dataset. It would be helpful to understand whether these were systematic issues with the data collection or annotation process, or more isolated incidents. This could inform strategies for improving the quality of future NER datasets.
Additionally, the paper focuses solely on the CoNLL-03 English dataset. While this is an important and widely-used benchmark, it would be valuable to see similar analyses conducted on other NER datasets to understand the broader landscape of dataset quality issues in this field.
Conclusion
This paper makes an important contribution by identifying and correcting errors in the CoNLL-03 English NER dataset, a widely-used benchmark for evaluating NER systems. The researchers' fine-grained analysis and the resulting corrected test set should lead to more accurate and reliable assessments of NER model performance.
These findings highlight the need for careful curation and validation of benchmark datasets, as issues with the test set can significantly impact the development and evaluation of NER systems. The paper serves as a cautionary tale and a call to action for the NER research community to prioritize dataset quality and reliability.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🔎
0
CoNLL#: Fine-grained Error Analysis and a Corrected Test Set for CoNLL-03 English
Andrew Rueda, Elena 'Alvarez Mellado, Constantine Lignos
Modern named entity recognition systems have steadily improved performance in the age of larger and more powerful neural models. However, over the past several years, the state-of-the-art has seemingly hit another plateau on the benchmark CoNLL-03 English dataset. In this paper, we perform a deep dive into the test outputs of the highest-performing NER models, conducting a fine-grained evaluation of their performance by introducing new document-level annotations on the test set. We go beyond F1 scores by categorizing errors in order to interpret the true state of the art for NER and guide future work. We review previous attempts at correcting the various flaws of the test set and introduce CoNLL#, a new corrected version of the test set that addresses its systematic and most prevalent errors, allowing for low-noise, interpretable error analysis.
Read more5/21/2024
📈
0
Annotation Errors and NER: A Study with OntoNotes 5.0
Gabriel Bernier-Colborne, Sowmya Vajjala
Named Entity Recognition (NER) is a well-studied problem in NLP. However, there is much less focus on studying NER datasets, compared to developing new NER models. In this paper, we employed three simple techniques to detect annotation errors in the OntoNotes 5.0 corpus for English NER, which is the largest available NER corpus for English. Our techniques corrected ~10% of the sentences in train/dev/test data. In terms of entity mentions, we corrected the span and/or type of ~8% of mentions in the dataset, while adding/deleting/splitting/merging a few more. These are large numbers of changes, considering the size of OntoNotes. We used three NER libraries to train, evaluate and compare the models trained with the original and the re-annotated datasets, which showed an average improvement of 1.23% in overall F-scores, with large (>10%) improvements for some of the entity types. While our annotation error detection methods are not exhaustive and there is some manual annotation effort involved, they are largely language agnostic and can be employed with other NER datasets, and other sequence labelling tasks.
Read more6/28/2024
💬
0
Pillars of Grammatical Error Correction: Comprehensive Inspection Of Contemporary Approaches In The Era of Large Language Models
Kostiantyn Omelianchuk, Andrii Liubonko, Oleksandr Skurzhanskyi, Artem Chernodub, Oleksandr Korniienko, Igor Samokhin
In this paper, we carry out experimental research on Grammatical Error Correction, delving into the nuances of single-model systems, comparing the efficiency of ensembling and ranking methods, and exploring the application of large language models to GEC as single-model systems, as parts of ensembles, and as ranking methods. We set new state-of-the-art performance with F_0.5 scores of 72.8 on CoNLL-2014-test and 81.4 on BEA-test, respectively. To support further advancements in GEC and ensure the reproducibility of our research, we make our code, trained models, and systems' outputs publicly available.
Read more4/24/2024
📈
0
Do English Named Entity Recognizers Work Well on Global Englishes?
Alexander Shan, John Bauer, Riley Carlson, Christopher Manning
The vast majority of the popular English named entity recognition (NER) datasets contain American or British English data, despite the existence of many global varieties of English. As such, it is unclear whether they generalize for analyzing use of English globally. To test this, we build a newswire dataset, the Worldwide English NER Dataset, to analyze NER model performance on low-resource English variants from around the world. We test widely used NER toolkits and transformer models, including models using the pre-trained contextual models RoBERTa and ELECTRA, on three datasets: a commonly used British English newswire dataset, CoNLL 2003, a more American focused dataset OntoNotes, and our global dataset. All models trained on the CoNLL or OntoNotes datasets experienced significant performance drops-over 10 F1 in some cases-when tested on the Worldwide English dataset. Upon examination of region-specific errors, we observe the greatest performance drops for Oceania and Africa, while Asia and the Middle East had comparatively strong performance. Lastly, we find that a combined model trained on the Worldwide dataset and either CoNLL or OntoNotes lost only 1-2 F1 on both test sets.
Read more4/23/2024