Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yuan Ye 0001
dblp:23/3416-1
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Information extraction and text analysis · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
relation extraction |
1.0 | 2 | 2022 | Does Recommend-Revise Produce Reliable Annotations? An Analysis on Missing Instances in DocRED · ACL (1) 2022 Integrating Relation Constraints with Neural Relation Extractors · AAAI 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › relation extraction
document-level relation extraction |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Does Recommend-Revise Produce Reliable Annotations? An Analysis on Missing Instances in DocRED · ACL (1) 2022 |
Empirical software engineering
data annotation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Does Recommend-Revise Produce Reliable Annotations? An Analysis on Missing Instances in DocRED · ACL (1) 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › relation extraction
neural relation extraction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Integrating Relation Constraints with Neural Relation Extractors · AAAI 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
distant supervision · 1.1annotation analysis · 1.1neural network · 0.4constraint loss · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Does Recommend-Revise Produce Reliable Annotations? An Analysis on Missing Instances in DocREDabstractDocRED is a widely used dataset for documentlevel relation extraction.In the large-scale annotation, a recommend-revise scheme is adopted to reduce the workload.Within this scheme, annotators are provided with candidate relation instances from distant supervision, and they then manually supplement and remove relational facts based on the recommendations.However, when comparing Do-cRED with a subset relabeled from scratch, we find that this scheme results in a considerable amount of false negative samples and an obvious bias towards popular entities and relations.Furthermore, we observe that the models trained on DocRED have low recall on our relabeled dataset and inherit the same bias in the training data.Through the analysis of annotators' behaviors, we figure out the underlying reason for the problems above: the scheme actually discourages annotators from supplementing adequate instances in the revision phase.We appeal to future research to take into consideration the issues with the recommend-revise scheme when designing new models and annotation schemes.The relabeled dataset is released at https://github. com/AndrewZhe/Revisit-DocRED, to serve as a more reliable test set of document RE models. Quzhe Huang, Shibo Hao, Yuan Ye 0001, Shengqi Zhu 0002, Yansong Feng 0002, Dongyan Zhao 0001 |
ACL (1) | 3 |
| 2020 | Integrating Relation Constraints with Neural Relation ExtractorsabstractRecent years have seen rapid progress in identifying predefined relationship between entity pairs using neural networks (NNs). However, such models often make predictions for each entity pair individually, thus often fail to solve the inconsistency among different predictions, which can be characterized by discrete relation constraints. These constraints are often defined over combinations of entity-relation-entity triples, since there often lack of explicitly well-defined type and cardinality requirements for the relations. In this paper, we propose a unified framework to integrate relation constraints with NNs by introducing a new loss term, Constraint Loss. Particularly, we develop two efficient methods to capture how well the local predictions from multiple instance pairs satisfy the relation constraints. Experiments on both English and Chinese datasets show that our approach can help NNs learn from discrete relation constraints to reduce inconsistency among local predictions, and outperform popular neural relation extraction (NRE) models even enhanced with extra post-processing. Our source code and datasets will be released at https://github.com/PKUYeYuan/Constraint-Loss-AAAI-2020. Yuan Ye 0001, Yansong Feng 0002, Bingfeng Luo, Yuxuan Lai, Dongyan Zhao 0001 |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2018 | Improved Discourse Parsing with Two-Step Neural Transition-Based ModelabstractDiscourse parsing aims to identify structures and relationships between different discourse units. Most existing approaches analyze a whole discourse at once, which often fails in distinguishing long-span relations and properly representing discourse units. In this article, we propose a novel parsing model to analyze discourse in a two-step fashion with different feature representations to characterize intra sentence and inter sentence discourse structures, respectively. Our model works in a transition-based framework and benefits from a stack long short-term memory neural network model. Experiments on benchmark tree banks show that our method outperforms traditional 1-step parsing methods in both English and Chinese. Yanyan Jia, Yansong Feng 0002, Yuan Ye 0001, Chongde Shi, Dongyan Zhao 0001 |
ACM Trans. Asian Low Resour. Lang. Inf. Process. | 3 |