Noise in Relation Classification Dataset TACRED: Characterization and Reduction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The overarching objective of this paper is two-fold. First, to explore model-based approaches to characterize the primary cause of the noise. in the RE dataset TACRED Second, to identify the potentially noisy instances. Towards the first objective, we analyze predictions and performance of state-of-the-art (SOTA) models to identify the root cause of noise in the dataset. Our analysis of TACRED shows that the majority of the noise in the dataset originates from the instances labeled as no-relation which are negative examples. For the second objective, we explore two nearest-neighbor-based strategies to automatically identify potentially noisy examples for elimination and reannotation. Our first strategy, referred to as Intrinsic Strategy (IS), is based on the assumption that positive examples are clean. Thus, we have used false-negative predictions to identify noisy negative examples. Whereas, our second approach, referred to as Extrinsic Strategy, is based on using a clean subset of the dataset to identify potentially noisy negative examples. Finally, we retrained the SOTA models on the eliminated and reannotated dataset. Our empirical results based on two SOTA models trained on TACRED-E following the IS show an average 4% F1-score improvement, whereas reannotation (TACRED-R) does not improve the original results. However, following ES, SOTA models show the average F1-score improvement of 3.8% and 4.4% when trained on respective eliminated (TACRED-EN) and reannotated (TACRED-RN) datasets respectively. We further extended the ES for cleaning positive examples as well, which resulted in an average performance improvement of 5.8% and 5.6% for the eliminated (TACRED-ENP) and reannotated (TACRED-RNP) datasets respectively.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Nov 2023.
Builds on
20 of 40 references.
References · 20
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019SpanBERT: Improving Pre-training by Representing and Predicting Spanscited by 834
- 2019ERNIE: Enhanced Language Representation with Informative Entitiescited by 528
- 2020K-Adapter: Infusing Knowledge into Pre-Trained Models with Adapterscited by 319
- 2019Knowledge Enhanced Contextual Word Representationscited by 296
- 2019Matching the Blanks: Distributional Similarity for Relation Learningcited by 272
- 2019KagNet: Knowledge-Aware Graph Networks for Commonsense Reasoningcited by 216
- 2018Graph Convolution over Pruned Dependency Trees Improves Relation Extractioncited by 146
- 2020TACRED Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the TACRED Relation Extraction Taskcited by 96
- 2019Attention Guided Graph Convolutional Networks for Relation Extractioncited by 82
- 2020Beyond Class-Conditional Assumption: A Primary Attempt to Combat Instance-Dependent Label Noisecited by 82
- 2021An Improved Baseline for Sentence-level Relation Extractioncited by 81
8 more
- 2021Re-TACRED: Addressing Shortcomings of the TACRED Datasetcited by 74
- 2016A Thorough Examination of the CNN/Daily Mail Reading Comprehension Taskcited by 72
- 2019KBQA: Learning Question Answering over QA Corpora and Knowledge Basescited by 44
- 2019Improving Relation Extraction by Pre-trained Language Representationscited by 24
- 2019Sentiment analysis is not solved! Assessing and probing sentiment classificationcited by 14
- 2021KGPool: Dynamic Knowledge Graph Context Selection for Relation Extractioncited by 12
- 2021Improving Sentence-Level Relation Extraction through Curriculum Learningcited by 8
- 2021Enriched Attention for Robust Relation Extractioncited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.