Classifiers commonly make use of pre-annotated datasets, wherein a model is evaluated by pre-defined metrics on a held-out test set typically made of human-annotated labels. Metrics used in these evaluations are tied to the availability of well-defined ground truth labels, and these metrics typically do not allow for inexact matches. These noisy ground truth labels and strict evaluation metrics may compromise the validity and realism of evaluation results. In the present work, we conduct a systematic label verification experiment on the entity linking (EL) task. Specifically, we ask annotators to verify the correctness of annotations after the fact (, posthoc). Compared to pre-annotation evaluation, state-of-the-art EL models performed extremely well according to the posthoc evaluation methodology. Surprisingly, we find predictions from EL models had a similar or higher verification rate than the ground truth. We conclude with a discussion on these findings and recommendations for future evaluations. The source code, raw results, and evaluation scripts are publicly available via the MIT license at https://github.com/yifding/e2e_EL_evaluate

The training process of scientific NER models is commonly performed in two steps: i) Pre-training a language model by self-supervised tasks on huge data and ii) fine-tune training with small labelled data. The success of the strategy depends on the relevance between the data domains and between the tasks. However, gaps are found in practice when the target domains are specific and small. We propose a novel framework to introduce a “pre-fine tuning” step between pre-training and fine-tuning. It constructs a corpus by selecting sentences from unlabeled documents that are the most relevant with the labelled training data. Instead of predicting tokens in random spans, the pre-fine tuning task is to predict tokens in entity candidates identified by text mining methods. Pre-fine tuning is automatic and light-weight because the corpus size can be much smaller than pre-training data to achieve a better performance. Experiments on seven benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness.

In the age of social news, it is important to understand the types of reactions that are evoked from news sources with various levels of credibility. In the present work we seek to better understand how users react to trusted and deceptive news sources across two popular, and very different, social media platforms. To that end, (1) we develop a model to classify user reactions into one of nine types, such as answer, elaboration, and question, etc, and (2) we measure the speed and the type of reaction for trusted and deceptive news sources for 10.8M Twitter posts and 6.2M Reddit comments. We show that there are significant differences in the speed and the type of reactions between trusted and deceptive news sources on Twitter, but far smaller differences on Reddit.