Learning Dynamic Context Augmentation for Global Entity Linking

Fei Wu; Guoping Hu; Sheng Lin; Siliang Tang; Xiang Ren; Xiaotao Gu; Xiyuan Yang; Yueting Zhuang; Zhigang Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Learning Dynamic Context Augmentation for Global Entity Linking

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that one-pass entity linking with accumulated dynamic context can match or exceed joint global inference, reaching 94.64% in-KB accuracy on AIDA-B while reducing inference complexity from roughly $O(T^2|E|^2I)$ to…

desk verdict One-pass dynamic context augmentation that beats global EL baselines on in-domain accuracy, but the linear-time claim needs a careful second look because of the 2-hop neighbor sets. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02117 v1 pith:OWMRY32F submitted 2019-09-04 cs.CL cs.LG

Xiyuan Yang , Xiaotao Gu , Sheng Lin , Siliang Tang , Yueting Zhuang , Fei Wu , Zhigang Chen , Guoping Hu

show 1 more author

Xiang Ren

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.LG

keywords entitylinkingcollectiveinferencedynamiccontextaugmentationsequentialdecisionmakingreinforcementlearningattentionmechanismknowledgebasedisambiguationscalability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Collective entity linking normally treats a document's mentions as one joint optimization problem, which is expensive and assumes all mentions cohere. This paper tries to show that a single left-to-right pass can capture the same global signal: Dynamic Context Augmentation (DCA) links one mention at a time and feeds the already-linked entities, plus their Wikipedia inlink neighbors, back into the local linker as a running context. With attention weighting and hard top-$K$ pruning, the paper reports 94.64% in-KB accuracy on AIDA-B with the ETHZ-Attn base model, the best figure it knows of on that benchmark, and claims inference cost $O(T|E|IK)$ against roughly $O(T^2|E|^2I)$ for global models. If the claim holds, document-level coherence does not require global search, and entity linking becomes practical at much larger candidate-set sizes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dynamic context: a growing set $S_t$ of previously linked entities, represented by pretrained embeddings, and its neighbor union $S'_t$. Relevance is scored by $u(\hat e_i)=\max_{e^j_{t+1}\in E_{t+1}} (e^j_{t+1})^\top A \hat e_i$; softmax turns these scores into attention weights, hard attention keeps only the top $K$ entities, and a second bilinear map $R$ produces coherence scores $\Phi(e^j_{t+1}, S_t)$ and $\Phi'(e^j_{t+1}, S'_t)$ that enter the local model's feature vector. This mechanism replaces the global coherence graph with a running summary, and the attention and pruning modules are what the paper credits with suppressing the noise that earlier, possibly wrong, links would otherwise inject.

What would settle it

Deliberately force the first few links in a test document to be wrong and measure accuracy on later mentions; if a single forced error at position $t$ lowers accuracy at positions $t+1,\ldots,T$ by more than the no-context local model's own variance, then one-pass context propagation is not suppressing error, and the paper's central robustness claim fails. The paper's own CWEB result under Size ordering already points to such sensitivity, so the test should use the trained DCA-SL release.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that inter-entity coherence can be approximated by a cumulative context vector built from previous decisions rather than by jointly optimizing the whole linking assignment. For each mention, DCA computes a weighted coherence score between each candidate and the set $S_t$ of earlier linked entities, using a bilinear relevance score and softmax attention, and a second coherence score against the union of their Wikipedia inlink neighbors. These scores are concatenated with local features (mention-entity prior, context similarity, type similarity) and fed to the base ranker. The paper shows the resulting DCA-SL reaches 94.64% on AIDA-B and that an RL variant, trained with document-level reward via REINFORCE, is more robust on noisy cross-domain data such as CWEB. It also argues that DCA's complexity is linear in the number of mentions and candidates, whereas global models scale quadratically and require hard candidate pruning.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the idea that deciding mentions in a fixed one-pass order and feeding earlier decisions back as context stays accurate; if early mistakes are noisy, later decisions inherit the noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

DCA can be attached to an existing local EL model without changing its architecture; on AIDA-B it lifts ETHZ-Attn from 90.88% to 94.64% and Berkeley-CNN from 84.21% to 92.72%.
Inference time grows linearly with the number of mentions and average candidates, so a DCA-based system need not hard-prune candidate sets to size about 5 the way global models do; the paper's experiments show run time and memory stay flat as $|E|$ grows.
Including 2-hop Wikipedia inlink neighbors gives a statistically significant gain over using only the linked entities themselves, indicating associative knowledge is part of what makes the one-pass context work.
The RL-trained version is the safer default for noisy, automatically generated text: DCA-SL collapses on CWEB under Size ordering while DCA-RL stays strong, so the sequential decision view is the paper's answer to error propagation.
The same local model, when used inside a global system, is outperformed by the DCA-enhanced version, suggesting the bottleneck is not the local scorer but how global signal is acquired.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension: train the supervised variant with predicted entities, or a mix of gold and predicted context, rather than gold-only context, because the paper trains DCA-SL on gold entities but deploys it on predicted ones; closing that gap should reduce the CWEB failure without RL.
The claimed linear complexity counts the coherence scoring but not the cost of fetching 2-hop neighbor sets for every previously linked entity; a production deployment would need to amortize or precompute those inlink neighborhoods before Eq. (4) is as cheap as advertised.
Because decision order visibly changes accuracy, an obvious next step is to learn the order rather than fixing Offset, Size, or Random; if order can be chosen per document, the one-pass model becomes a general-purpose alternative to joint inference rather than a specialized fast approximation.
The RL result suggests that the main role of reinforcement learning here is not better final accuracy but robustness to noise; comparing DCA-RL against DCA-SL trained with predicted contexts would separate the benefit of exploration from the benefit of sequential training.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: DCA is a genuinely useful wrapper. The core idea—iterate through mentions once, accumulate attention-weighted representations of already-linked entities plus their Wikipedia inlink neighbors, and feed that as extra features into any local ranker—is new relative to the cited global models, and the empirical work is noticeably cleaner than most EL papers from that era. Table 2's 94.64 on AIDA-B with ETHZ-Attn + DCA-SL is the best number reported there at the time, and the gains hold across five cross-domain sets with standard errors over five runs. The ablations on decision order, attention variants, and neighbor hops are the right ones. The code is public, and the exclusion of RLEL is explained honestly.

The soft spots are real but mostly in the efficiency half, which is half the contribution. Section 5's O(T|E|IK) bound quietly assumes the 2-hop neighbor set S'_t from Eq. (4) is either pruned to the same K or costs nothing. As written, S'_t is the union of inlink neighborhoods of entities in S_t; if S_t still contains all t previous entities, the true cost is quadratic in T. If S_t is supposed to be the top-K set, then the cost should include a neighborhood-size factor N_avg, which the bound omits. The runtime plot in Figure 4(c) does not report |S'_t| or isolate Eq. (4), so it does not settle the scaling claim. This is a fixable presentation/analysis gap, not evidence that the method is actually slow, but the paper should be asked to state the bound precisely and measure the neighborhood cost.

The other two concerns are weaker. The train-on-gold / test-on-predicted exposure gap is real and self-flagged; the RL variant mitigates it, and Figure 3's collapse of DCA-SL on noisy CWEB is an honest figure that confirms the risk. The 80% energy saving in Section 6.4 has no measurement protocol, so it should be downgraded or removed.

Net: the accuracy results hold up on the evidence in the paper, and the method deserves peer review. I would send it with a request to fix the complexity analysis and either add an energy measurement protocol or drop that claim. It is a solid paper with one load-bearing soft spot in the analysis, not in the experiments.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes Dynamic Context Augmentation (DCA), a sequential entity linking approach that enhances local linkers by accumulating context from previously linked entities and their Wikipedia inlink neighborhoods, using attention-based weighting and hard pruning over the history. Two learning variants are introduced: a supervised ranking model trained with gold previous entities, and a reinforcement learning model that treats linking as a sequential decision problem. Experiments on AIDA-B and five cross-domain datasets show consistent improvements over two local base models (ETHZ-Attn and Berkeley-CNN) and competitive or superior performance relative to global collective models, with a claimed computational complexity of O(T|E|IK) per document. The paper also provides ablations on decision order, attention mechanism, neighbor hops, and decision length, and reports 95% confidence intervals over five runs.

Significance. The contribution is practically significant if the efficiency claim holds: it offers a simple plug-and-enhance module that improves local EL models and approaches the accuracy of global models while requiring only one pass over mentions. The experimental methodology is solid in several respects: gains are consistent across two base models, multiple datasets, and several ablations; results are reported with confidence intervals; the code and data are released; and comparisons with global models sharing the same local features (Deep-ED, Ment-Norm) are fair. The paper is transparent about known limitations such as gold-context training for the supervised variant and the failure mode of Size ordering on noisy datasets. The main weakness is that the efficiency analysis omits the cost of the 2-hop neighbor set, so the headline complexity bound is not established as stated.

major comments (3)

[Section 5, Eq. (4)] The stated complexity O(T|E|IK) omits the computation over the 2-hop neighbor set S'_t. In Section 3, S'_t is defined as the union of Wikipedia inlink neighborhoods of the previously linked entities, and the paper does not state that S'_t is hard-pruned. Because the attention weights a' in Eq. (4) depend on the current candidate set, the score for every candidate e^j_{t+1} must sum over all e_i in S'_t. If S'_t contains the neighborhoods of all previous entities, the per-mention cost grows with t, yielding O(T^2 |E| I N_avg) for a document; if only the K pruned entities in S_t contribute their neighborhoods, the cost is O(T |E| I K N_avg), where N_avg is the average inlink-neighborhood size. In either case, the stated bound O(T|E|IK) is missing a factor that can be large and is not controlled by K alone. Figure 4(c) reports runtime versus number of mentions for fixed |E|=35 but does not report |S'_t| or vary neighborhood size, so it cannot validate the claimed linear scaling with a small constant. The paper should either revise the complexity analysis to include this term, describe a pruning strategy for S'_t, or provide empirical measurements of |S'_t| and its impact on runtime.
[Section 4.1 and Table 2] The supervised variant DCA-SL is trained with gold previous entities (S_t = {e*_1,...,e*_t}) while at test time it must condition on predicted entities, a distribution mismatch that the paper acknowledges. The paper motivates DCA-RL by this mismatch, and the RL results are encouraging, but the paper still presents DCA-SL results (e.g., 94.64 on AIDA-B) as part of the main contribution. To substantiate the claim that the supervised strategy is an effective, deployable model, the paper should either (a) train a variant that uses predicted entities during training (e.g., scheduled sampling or bootstrap), or (b) explicitly frame DCA-SL as an oracle-trained upper bound and base the primary practical claim on DCA-RL. Without this, the severity of the mismatch is not quantified and the deployment scenario described in Section 6.1 is not fully matched for DCA-SL.
[Section 6.3.1 and Tables 2-3] The main results do not state which decision order (Size, Offset, or Random) was used. Figure 3 shows that performance is materially affected by the order: DCA-SL with Size collapses on CWEB, while Size is the best order on AIDA-B. If the reported tables use different orders per dataset or select the best order post hoc, the headline gains may reflect order selection rather than the DCA mechanism itself. The paper should fix the order selection protocol (e.g., choose on AIDA-A and apply it uniformly), report results for all orders, or explicitly list the order used in each table.

minor comments (6)

[Table 3] The header 'MSBNC' appears to be a typo and should read 'MSNBC'.
[Section 5, Eq. (9)] The summation notation in Eq. (9) is hard to read; the subscripts on the inner sums should be disambiguated, and 'approximate to' should be replaced with a more precise asymptotic statement (e.g., big-O under the assumption that all candidate sets are bounded by |E|).
[Section 6.4] The text states that 'the running time ... increases shapely' for global models; this should be 'sharply'.
[Figure 4(b)] The memory-usage panel lacks units and a description of how memory was measured; please add them.
[Section 6.4] The claim that DCA saves up to 80% of energy consumption over Ment-Norm is reported without measurement details; please describe the experimental setup or qualify the claim.
[Abstract] 'Despite of the recent success' should be 'Despite the recent success'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the accuracy and efficiency results are measured against external benchmarks and baselines, and the Section 5 complexity bound's omission of Eq. (4) is a correctness issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. DCA augments two external local EL models (ETHZ-Attn and Berkeley-CNN), uses externally released candidates and embeddings, and reports accuracy on held-out public benchmarks (AIDA-B, MSNBC, AQUAINT, ACE2004, CWEB, WIKI) against external baselines. Hyper-parameters, including K=7, are tuned on AIDA-A and evaluated on AIDA-B, which is standard practice rather than a fitted-input prediction. The RL reward is the negative error rate of the reported metric, but using the target metric as a training objective does not make the reported test-time numbers equivalent to a fitted parameter. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The main concern is Section 5's claim that the model's complexity is O(T|E|IK), which omits the cost of the 2-hop neighbor union S'_t introduced in Eq. (4); if S'_t is not also pruned to K, the per-mention score depends on the size of Wikipedia inlink neighborhoods. This is an unsubstantiated complexity statement and a potential correctness weakness, but it is not circularity: the efficiency claim does not reduce by construction to any fitted quantity or to the paper's own equations defining the result. Similarly, the fragility of DCA-SL under noisy decision orders (Figure 3) is an empirical limitation, not a circular step. Overall, the paper's central claims retain independent content grounded in external experimental comparison, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's empirical claims rest on a stack of borrowed resources: candidate sets (Ment-Norm), pretrained embeddings, a typing system, Wikipedia inlink structure, and two existing local model architectures. These are acknowledged, standard for the field at the time, and mostly neutral with respect to the DCA-specific contribution. The main hand-set numbers are the hyper-parameters tuned on AIDA-A (dev). The efficiency claim additionally assumes that the neighborhood set S'_t is cheap to compute or small, which is not guaranteed by the graph structure. No evidence is provided that any of these choices is the unique one; results are contingent on the specific benchmark stack.

free parameters (4)

K (hard-attention pruning size) = 7
Top-K previous entities kept in the dynamic context (Section 3); directly controls both accuracy and the efficiency bound O(T|E|IK); tuned on AIDA-A.
rank margin gamma = 0.01
Margin in the max-margin loss (Section 4.1); tuned on AIDA-A.
discount factor rho = 0.9
Reward discount in Eq. (7); tuned on AIDA-A.
training hyper-parameters (H1=100, dropout 0.2, MaxNorm 4, Adam lr 2e-4 then 5e-5) = as listed
Model capacity and optimization schedule (Section 6.1); tuned on AIDA-A; the learning rate drops once validation accuracy exceeds 92.8%.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Candidate entity sets are taken from the Ment-Norm system (Le and Titov, 2018)
All accuracy numbers are bounded by the gold recall of these candidate sets (Table 1); a different candidate generator would change every reported number (Section 6.1).
domain assumption Entity neighborhoods are defined by Wikipedia inlinks (Section 3)
2-hop dynamic context (Eq. 4) exists only where an inlink graph is available; the method's associative signal is tied to Wikipedia's link structure.
domain assumption Pretrained GloVe word embeddings and the Ganea and Hofmann (2017) entity embeddings provide the representation space
The DCA matrix products (Eqs. 1, 3, 4) live in this fixed embedding space; the quality of the representations is borrowed, not learned here.
domain assumption The type-similarity feature comes from an externally designed typing system (Xu and Barbosa, 2018) retrained on AIDA-train
Type evidence (Section 2.2) is a system outside DCA; its accuracy on AIDA-A is reported as 95%, but it is not part of the DCA contribution.
standard math REINFORCE policy gradient theorem (Sutton and Barto, 1998)
Used to derive the parameter update in Eq. (8); standard, unproved background.
domain assumption Base local model design (prior, context similarity, feed-forward ranker) from Ganea and Hofmann (2017)
DCA is a wrapper; its reported gains are relative to these base models and inherit their inductive biases.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Dynamic Context Augmentation for Global Entity Linking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OWMRY32F

@misc{pith2026190902117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Dynamic Context Augmentation for Global Entity Linking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OWMRY32F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02117}
}

read the original abstract

Despite of the recent success of collective entity linking (EL) methods, these "global" inference methods may yield sub-optimal results when the "all-mention coherence" assumption breaks, and often suffer from high computational cost at the inference stage, due to the complex search space. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective solution, called Dynamic Context Augmentation (DCA), for collective EL, which requires only one pass through the mentions in a document. DCA sequentially accumulates context information to make efficient, collective inference, and can cope with different local EL models as a plug-and-enhance module. We explore both supervised and reinforcement learning strategies for learning the DCA model. Extensive experiments show the effectiveness of our model with different learning settings, base models, decision orders and attention mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02117 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An Illustration of the Dynamic Context Augmentation process. A traditional global EL model jointly optimizes the linking configuration after iterative calculations over all mentions, which is computationally expensive. In contrast, the DCA process only requires one pass of the document to accumulate knowledge from previously linked mentions to enhance fast future inference. the inter-entity coherence between menti… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Neural attention mechanism on the dynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Ablation Study on Different Decision Orders. We test on both in-domain (AIDA-B) and cross-domain (CWEB) datasets, using ETHZ-Attn as the local model. 8%) and ETHZ-Attn (3.3% on average). Note that, our DCA model outperforms existing global models with the same local model (Global-RNN uses Berkeley-CNN as base model, Deep-ED and Ment-Norm use ETHZ-Attn as the local model) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) In-KB accuracy as a function of decision length on AIDA-B dataset; (b) Memory usage as a function of the number of candidates on AIDA-B dataset; (c) Runtime cost (at inference time) as a function of the number of mentions. (each dot represents a document of AIDA-B …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Ayman Alhelbawy and Robert Gaizauskas. 2014. Graph ranking for collective named entity disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), volume 2, pages 75--80

work page 2014
[4]

Roi Blanco, Giuseppe Ottaviano, and Edgar Meij. 2015. Fast and space-efficient entity linking for queries. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 179--188. ACM

work page 2015
[5]

Hui Chen, Baogang Wei, Yonghuai Liu, Yiming Li, Jifang Yu, and Wenhao Zhu. 2017. Bilinear joint learning of word and entity embeddings for entity linking. Neurocomputing

work page 2017
[6]

Xiao Cheng and Dan Roth. 2013. Relational inference for wikification. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1787--1796

work page 2013
[7]

Kevin Clark and Christopher D Manning. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning for mention-ranking coreference models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2256--2262

2016
[8]

Silviu Cucerzan. 2007. Large-scale named entity disambiguation based on wikipedia data. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL)

work page 2007

Show all 37 references

[9]

Zheng Fang, Yanan Cao, Qian Li, Dongjie Zhang, Zhenyu Zhang, and Yanbing Liu. 2019. Joint entity linking with deep reinforcement learning. In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 438--447. ACM

2019
[10]

Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Yijie Zhang, Yang Yang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2018. Relation mention extraction from noisy data with hierarchical reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01237

2018 arXiv
[11]

Matthew Francis-Landau, Greg Durrett, and Dan Klein. 2016. Capturing semantic similarity for entity linking with convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.00734

2016 arXiv
[12]

Octavian-Eugen Ganea and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Deep joint entity disambiguation with local neural attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04920

2017 arXiv
[13]

Amir Globerson, Nevena Lazic, Soumen Chakrabarti, Amarnag Subramanya, Michael Ringaard, and Fernando Pereira. 2016. Collective entity resolution with multi-focal attention. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Lo...

2016
[14]

Zhaochen Guo and Denilson Barbosa. 2016. Robust named entity disambiguation with random walks. Semantic Web, (Preprint):1--21

2016
[15]

Zhengyan He, Shujie Liu, Mu Li, Ming Zhou, Longkai Zhang, and Houfeng Wang. 2013. Learning entity representation for entity disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), volume 2, pages 30--34

2013
[16]

Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen F \"u rstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural L...

2011
[17]

Kristy Hughes, Joel Nothman, and James R Curran. 2014. Trading accuracy for faster named entity linking. In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2014, pages 32--40

2014
[18]

Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

2014 arXiv
[19]

Phong Le and Ivan Titov. 2018. Improving entity linking by modeling latent relations between mentions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10637

2018 arXiv
[20]

David Milne and Ian H Witten. 2008. Learning to link with wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 509--518. ACM

2008
[21]

Vinod Nair and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2010. Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on machine learning (ICML-10), pages 807--814

2010
[22]

Karthik Narasimhan, Adam Yala, and Regina Barzilay. 2016. Improving information extraction by acquiring external evidence with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.07954

2016 arXiv
[23]

Dat Ba Nguyen, Johannes Hoffart, Martin Theobald, and Gerhard Weikum. 2014. Aida-light: High-throughput named-entity disambiguation. LDOW, 1184

2014
[24]

Thien Huu Nguyen, Nicolas Fauceglia, Mariano Rodriguez Muro, Oktie Hassanzadeh, Alfio Massimiliano Gliozzo, and Mohammad Sadoghi. 2016. Joint learning of local and global features for entity linking via neural networks. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Con...

2016
[25]

Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532--1543

2014
[26]

Maria Pershina, Yifan He, and Ralph Grishman. 2015. Personalized page rank for named entity disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 238--243

2015
[27]

Minh C Phan, Aixin Sun, Yi Tay, Jialong Han, and Chenliang Li. 2018. Pair-linking for collective entity disambiguation: Two could be better than all. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

2018
[28]

Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeptype: Multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01021

2018 arXiv
[29]

Lev Ratinov, Dan Roth, Doug Downey, and Mike Anderson. 2011. Local and global algorithms for disambiguation to wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1, pages 1375--1384. Associa...

2011
[30]

Wei Shen, Jianyong Wang, and Jiawei Han. 2015. Entity linking with a knowledge base: Issues, techniques, and solutions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 27(2):443--460

2015
[31]

Wei Shen, Jianyong Wang, Ping Luo, and Min Wang. 2012. Linden: linking named entities with knowledge base via semantic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, pages 449--458. ACM

2012
[32]

Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1929--1958

2014
[33]

Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 1998. Reinforcement learning: An introduction, volume 1. MIT press Cambridge

1998
[34]

Peng Xu and Denilson Barbosa. 2018. Neural fine-grained entity type classification with hierarchy-aware loss. north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics, 1:16--25

2018
[35]

Mengge Xue, Weiming Cai, Jinsong Su, Linfeng Song, Yubin Ge, Yubao Liu, and Bin Wang. 2019. Neural collective entity linking based on recurrent random walk network learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.09320

2019 arXiv
[36]

Ikuya Yamada, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yoshiyasu Takefuji. 2016. Joint learning of the embedding of words and entities for named entity disambiguation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.01343

2016 arXiv
[37]

Yi Yang, Ozan Irsoy, and Kazi Shefaet Rahman. 2018. Collective entity disambiguation with structured gradient tree boosting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.10229

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Ayman Alhelbawy and Robert Gaizauskas. 2014. Graph ranking for collective named entity disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), volume 2, pages 75--80

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Roi Blanco, Giuseppe Ottaviano, and Edgar Meij. 2015. Fast and space-efficient entity linking for queries. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 179--188. ACM

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Hui Chen, Baogang Wei, Yonghuai Liu, Yiming Li, Jifang Yu, and Wenhao Zhu. 2017. Bilinear joint learning of word and entity embeddings for entity linking. Neurocomputing

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Xiao Cheng and Dan Roth. 2013. Relational inference for wikification. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1787--1796

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Kevin Clark and Christopher D Manning. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning for mention-ranking coreference models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2256--2262

2016

[8] [8]

Silviu Cucerzan. 2007. Large-scale named entity disambiguation based on wikipedia data. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL)

work page 2007