PreprintCited by 6Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.

MetaIE: Distilling a Meta Model from LLM for All Kinds of Information Extraction Tasks

Open access

Abstract

Information extraction (IE) is a fundamental area in natural language processing where prompting large language models (LLMs), even with in-context examples, cannot defeat small LMs tuned on very small IE datasets. We observe that IE tasks, such as named entity recognition and relation extraction, all focus on extracting important information, which can be formalized as a label-to-span matching. In this paper, we propose a novel framework MetaIE to build a small LM as meta-model by learning to extract "important information", i.e., the meta-understanding of IE, so that this meta-model can be adapted to all kind of IE tasks effectively and efficiently. Specifically, MetaIE obtains the small LM via a symbolic distillation from an LLM following the label-to-span scheme. We construct the distillation dataset via sampling sentences from language model pre-training datasets (e.g., OpenWebText in our implementation) and prompting an LLM to identify the typed spans of "important information". We evaluate the meta-model under the few-shot adaptation setting. Extensive results on 13 datasets from 6 IE tasks confirm that MetaIE can offer a better starting point for few-shot tuning on IE datasets and outperform other meta-models from (1) vanilla language model pre-training, (2) multi-IE-task pre-training with human annotations, and (3) single-IE-task symbolic distillation from LLM. Moreover, we provide comprehensive analyses of MetaIE, such as the size of the distillation dataset, the meta-model architecture, and the size of the meta-model.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.00457

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • LongMemEval assesses five core memory abilities: information extraction, multi-session reasoning, temporal reasoning, knowledge updates, and abstention.

    “The benchmark assesses five core memory abilities: information extraction (Singh, 2018; Peng et al., 2024), multisession reasoning, temporal reasoning, knowledge updates, and abstention (Xin et al., 2021).”

    From Hippocampus: An Efficient and Scalable Memory Module for Agentic AI (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2024

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 6

Metadata

Authors
Peng, L., Wang, Z., Yao, F., Wang, Z., & Shang, J.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393904177
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
information extraction, knowledge distillation, meta-model, named entity recognition, relation extraction, few-shot adaptation, large language models

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