挑战了事件抽取中必须依赖触发词的惯例,发现触发词并非总是必要。
Are Triggers Needed for Document-Level Event Extraction?
- 在文档级事件抽取中测试不同质量触发词的效果,涵盖人工标注到随机生成。
- 发现是否需要触发词取决于数据集事件密度和任务信息可用性。
- 意外发现:即使是随机触发词,对提示学习也至关重要。
现有事件抽取研究多聚焦于句子级别,普遍假设需先识别触发词(即引发事件的词或短语),再据此抽取事件论元。本文首次系统考察文档级事件抽取中触发词的作用。在三个文档级事件抽取数据集上,评估了多种端到端与流水线式Transformer模型,使用不同质量的触发词(人工标注、大模型生成、关键词、随机)进行性能对比。结果表明,系统是否受益于显式提取触发词,取决于数据集特征(如每篇文档平均事件数)及抽取时可用的任务信息(如自然语言事件模式)。出人意料的是,即使输入中存在随机触发词,对基于提示的上下文学习方法仍具有重要影响。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Most existing work on event extraction has focused on sentence-level texts and presumes the identification of a trigger-span -- a word or phrase in the input that evokes the occurrence of an event of interest. Event arguments are then extracted with respect to the trigger. Indeed, triggers are treated as integral to, and trigger detection as an essential component of, event extraction. In this paper, we provide the first investigation of the role of triggers for the more difficult and much less studied task of document-level event extraction. We analyze their usefulness in multiple end-to-end and pipelined transformer-based event extraction models for three document-level event extraction datasets, measuring performance using triggers of varying quality (human-annotated, LLM-generated, keyword-based, and random). We find that whether or not systems benefit from explicitly extracting triggers depends both on dataset characteristics (i.e. the typical number of events per document) and task-specific information available during extraction (i.e. natural language event schemas). Perhaps surprisingly, we also observe that the mere existence of triggers in the input, even random ones, is important for prompt-based in-context learning approaches to the task.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。