PreprintCited by 482Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Zero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension

Open access
Levy, Omer, Seo, Minjoon, Choi, Eunsol, Zettlemoyer, Luke·2017·arXiv

Abstract

We show that relation extraction can be reduced to answering simple reading comprehension questions, by associating one or more natural-language questions with each relation slot. This reduction has several advantages: we can (1) learn relation-extraction models by extending recent neural reading-comprehension techniques, (2) build very large training sets for those models by combining relation-specific crowd-sourced questions with distant supervision, and even (3) do zero-shot learning by extracting new relation types that are only specified at test-time, for which we have no labeled training examples. Experiments on a Wikipedia slot-filling task demonstrate that the approach can generalize to new questions for known relation types with high accuracy, and that zero-shot generalization to unseen relation types is possible, at lower accuracy levels, setting the bar for future work on this task.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1706.04115

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Orthogonalized updates significantly outperform naive sequential editing on standard benchmarks (CounterFact, zsRE), particularly as the number of edits scales from 1 to 1000.

    “We demonstrate empirically that orthogonalized updates significantly outperform naive sequential editing on standard benchmarks (CounterFact [8], zsRE [9]), particularly as the number of edits scales from 1 to 1000.”
  • Standard benchmarks for knowledge editing include CounterFact and zsRE.

    “Standard benchmarks for knowledge editing include: • CounterFact [8]: A dataset of counterfactual edits where models must update their predictions for specific facts. • zsRE [9]: A zero-shot relation extraction dataset adapted for knowledge editing evaluation.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Michele Banko, Michael J. Cafarella, Stephen Soderland, Matt Broadhead, and Oren Et- zioni. 2007. Open information extraction from the web. In Proceedings of the 20th Interna- tional Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence.
  2. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Fran- cisco, CA, USA, IJCAI'07, pages 2670-2676. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1625275.1625705. 7 http://nlp.cs.washington.edu/zeroshot
  3. Thomas Demeester, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebas- tian Riedel. 2016. Lifted rule injection for re- lation embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Austin, Texas, pages 1389-1399. https://aclweb.org/anthology/D16-1146.
  4. Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomáš Kočiský, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teach- ing machines to read and comprehend. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03340. · arXiv
  5. Makoto Miwa and Mohit Bansal. 2016. End-to-end re- lation extraction using lstms on sequences and tree structures. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, Berlin, Germany, pages 1105- 1116. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P16-1105.
  6. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Doha, Qatar, pages 1532-1543. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levy, O., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Zettlemoyer, L.
Affiliations
  • Bar-Ilan University (IL)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
Pages
333-342
OpenAlex
W2624677889
Cited by
482
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 21
FWCI
17.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1252835, 1562364)
  • Nvidia
  • Tencent
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-13-2-0019, FA8750)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-16-1-, W911NF)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
zero-shot relation extraction, reading comprehension, natural language queries, distant supervision, zero-shot learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review