Zhaohui Yan


2023

pdf
Modeling Instance Interactions for Joint Information Extraction with Neural High-Order Conditional Random Field
Zixia Jia | Zhaohui Yan | Wenjuan Han | Zilong Zheng | Kewei Tu
Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Prior works on joint Information Extraction (IE) typically model instance (e.g., event triggers, entities, roles, relations) interactions by representation enhancement, type dependencies scoring, or global decoding. We find that the previous models generally consider binary type dependency scoring of a pair of instances, and leverage local search such as beam search to approximate global solutions. To better integrate cross-instance interactions, in this work, we introduce a joint IE framework (CRFIE) that formulates joint IE as a high-order Conditional Random Field. Specifically, we design binary factors and ternary factors to directly model interactions between not only a pair of instances but also triplets. Then, these factors are utilized to jointly predict labels of all instances.To address the intractability problem of exact high-order inference, we incorporate a high-order neural decoder that is unfolded from a mean-field variational inference method, which achieves consistent learning and inference. The experimental results show that our approach achieves consistent improvements on three IE tasks compared with our baseline and prior work.

2022

pdf
An Empirical Study of Pipeline vs. Joint approaches to Entity and Relation Extraction
Zhaohui Yan | Zixia Jia | Kewei Tu
Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers)

The Entity and Relation Extraction (ERE) task includes two basic sub-tasks: Named Entity Recognition and Relation Extraction. In the last several years, much work focused on joint approaches for the common perception that the pipeline approach suffers from the error propagation problem. Recent work reconsiders the pipeline scheme and shows that it can produce comparable results. To systematically study the pros and cons of these two schemes. We design and test eight pipeline and joint approaches to the ERE task. We find that with the same span representation methods, the best joint approach still outperforms the best pipeline model, but improperly designed joint approaches may have poor performance. We hope our work could shed some light on the pipeline-vs-joint debate of the ERE task and inspire further research.

2021

pdf
Structural Knowledge Distillation: Tractably Distilling Information for Structured Predictor
Xinyu Wang | Yong Jiang | Zhaohui Yan | Zixia Jia | Nguyen Bach | Tao Wang | Zhongqiang Huang | Fei Huang | Kewei Tu
Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Knowledge distillation is a critical technique to transfer knowledge between models, typically from a large model (the teacher) to a more fine-grained one (the student). The objective function of knowledge distillation is typically the cross-entropy between the teacher and the student’s output distributions. However, for structured prediction problems, the output space is exponential in size; therefore, the cross-entropy objective becomes intractable to compute and optimize directly. In this paper, we derive a factorized form of the knowledge distillation objective for structured prediction, which is tractable for many typical choices of the teacher and student models. In particular, we show the tractability and empirical effectiveness of structural knowledge distillation between sequence labeling and dependency parsing models under four different scenarios: 1) the teacher and student share the same factorization form of the output structure scoring function; 2) the student factorization produces more fine-grained substructures than the teacher factorization; 3) the teacher factorization produces more fine-grained substructures than the student factorization; 4) the factorization forms from the teacher and the student are incompatible.