When knowledge graphs (KGs) are automatically extracted from text, are they accurate enough for downstream analysis? Unfortunately, current annotated datasets cannot be used to evaluate this question, since the knowledge graphs they correspond to, constructed by mapping entities in the text to nodes and relations to edges, are typically highly disconnected, too small, or overly complex. To address this gap, we introduce AffilKG, which is a collection of six datasets that are the first to pair complete book scans with large, labeled knowledge graphs. Each dataset features affiliation graphs, which are simple KGs that capture Member relationships between Person and Organization entities—useful in studies of migration, community interactions, and other social phenomena. In addition, three datasets include expanded KGs with a wider variety of relation types. Our preliminary experiments demonstrate significant variability in model performance across datasets, underscoring AffilKG’s ability to enable two critical advances: (1) benchmarking how extraction errors propagate to graph-level analyses (e.g., community structure), and (2) validating KG extraction methods for real-world social science research.

Relation extraction (RE) extracts structured tuples of relationships (e.g. friend, enemy) between entities (e.g. Sherlock Holmes, John Watson) from text, with exciting potential applications. Hundreds of RE papers have been published in recent years; do their evaluation practices inform these goals? We review recent surveys and a sample of recent RE methods papers, compiling 38 datasets currently being used. Unfortunately, many have frequent label errors, and ones with known problems continue to be used. Many datasets focus on producing labels for a large number of relation types, often through error-prone annotation methods (e.g. distant supervision or crowdsourcing), and many recent papers rely exclusively on such datasets. We draw attention to a promising alternative: datasets with a small number of relations, often in specific domains like chemistry, finance, or biomedicine, where it is possible to obtain high quality expert annotations; such data can more realistically evaluate RE performance. The research community should consider more often using such resources.

Zero-shot event extraction (EE) methods infer richly structured event records from text, based only on a minimal user specification and no training examples, which enables flexibility in exploring and developing applications. Most event extraction research uses the Automatic Content Extraction (ACE) annotated dataset to evaluate supervised EE methods, but can it be used to evaluate zero-shot and other low-supervision EE? We describe ACE’s event structures and identify significant ambiguities and issues in current evaluation practice, including (1) coreferent argument mentions, (2) conflicting argument head conventions, and (3) ignorance of modality and event class details. By sometimes mishandling these subtleties, current work may dramatically understate the actual performance of zero-shot and other low-supervision EE, considering up to 32% of correctly identified arguments and 25% of correctly ignored event mentions as false negatives. For each issue, we propose recommendations for future evaluations so the research community can better utilize ACE as an event evaluation resource.