Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multimodal Coreference Resolution for Chinese Social Media Dialogues: Dataset and Benchmark Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The authors introduce TikTalkCoref, an annotated Chinese multimodal coreference dataset drawn from Douyin short-video dialogues, and benchmark a text-plus-vision pipeline on it.

desk verdict TikTalkCoref is a real dataset contribution, but the alignment benchmark depends on unvalidated automatic visual clusters, so treat the R@K numbers as provisional rather than reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14321 v2 pith:LLGAMGOF submitted 2025-04-19 cs.CL

Xingyu Li , Chen Gong , Guohong Fu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords multimodalcoreferenceresolutionChinesesocialmediadialoguesTikTalkCorefdatasetcross-modalpersonalignmenttext-videoretrievalcontrastivelearningannotation
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

The paper claims that multimodal coreference resolution for real social media dialogue can be studied with a new resource, TikTalkCoref, which pairs Douyin short videos with user-comment dialogues and manually annotates which textual mentions point to which person's head regions in the video. It argues this is the first Chinese multimodal coreference dataset built from real-world short-video dialogue, and it supplies a benchmark pipeline plus results: textual coreference at 65.46 average F1 and fine-tuned text-to-video retrieval at 60.83 R@1. If the resource is sound, it gives researchers a way to measure how well models link comments to the people in the video they discuss.

What carries the argument

The cross-modal coreference cluster is the central object: a textual cluster of mentions that all refer to one person, paired with head-region images of that same person from the video. To build these pairs, the paper's pipeline uses Maverick with a DeBERTa encoder to detect mention starts and ends and to cluster antecedents, YOLOv5-based head detection with DeepSORT tracking plus MTCNN and MobileFaceNet face recognition to group head regions into identity clusters, and CN-CLIP contrastive learning that retrieves the visual cluster for each textual cluster using a temperature-scaled cross-entropy loss. The mechanism turns coreference resolution into a retrieval problem: if the text cluster and the visual cluster lie close in the shared embedding space, the pair is accepted as cross-modal coreference.

What would settle it

Re-run the alignment evaluation with the manual head-region boxes substituted for the automatic visual person clusters; if the R@K scores move by a large margin, the automatic clustering is doing the work and the benchmark is not measuring coreference against the gold-standard annotations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that TikTalkCoref is the first Chinese multimodal coreference dataset for social media in real-world scenarios, with manual annotations that cover both sides of the reference relation: textual mentions of people clustered into entities, and head-region boxes in the associated video frames for the same people. The dataset holds 1,012 dialogues from the Douyin platform, 519.65 minutes of video, 2,179 mentions, 1,435 textual clusters, and 958 bounding boxes, with 338 celebrity-focused dialogues set aside as a sub-dataset. The benchmark on the celebrity subset combines Maverick, a pipeline-style textual coreference model, with automated head detection, tracking and face clustering to form visual person clusters, and CN-CLIP, a Chinese contrastive image-text model, to align textual clusters to head-region images. Reported results are 65.46 average F1 for textual coreference and 60.83 R@1 for fine-tuned cross-modal alignment, with zero-shot and data-augmentation variants analysed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the automatic person clusters built in Section 4.2 match the manually annotated head regions; the paper does not verify this, so if the automatic identity clusters are inaccurate, the R@K alignment scores in Section 4.3 are not measuring coreference against the human gold standard.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MCR on Chinese social media becomes a fixed benchmark with train, dev, and test splits, so future systems can be compared on the same real-world dialogues rather than on scripted or descriptive data.
  • The celebrity sub-dataset gives a clean evaluation setup: references to celebrities in comments can be verified against the video's visible faces.
  • The data-augmentation result implies that non-celebrity dialogues improve textual coreference on celebrity conversations, suggesting that broadening training data to generic person references transfers across domains.
  • Fine-tuned CN-CLIP outperforms R2D2 on R@1 (60.83 vs 56.25) and Mean (71.81 vs 70.00), suggesting that contrastive fine-tuning with negative images drawn from the same video is an effective alignment strategy for this task.
  • R2D2's better zero-shot and noun-central performance indicates strong pretraining transfer, so the choice between zero-shot retrieval and fine-tuning will matter for deployment scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the automatic visual clusters are accurate enough, the benchmark implies that contrastive retrieval is a viable route to person-level grounding in social media, and the same approach could be extended to objects, locations, or brands mentioned in comments.
  • The annotation scheme's 'person not found' and 'face not identifiable' categories, described in Appendix A.3, could support a more honest evaluation that includes unanswerable alignment cases; the reported R@K numbers currently only score videos where a person was expected to appear.
  • A natural test of the benchmark's validity is to recompute alignment scores using the manually drawn head boxes instead of the automatic identity clusters; how much the numbers move would separate cross-modal alignment ability from visual clustering ability.
  • Because pronoun-central clusters align most easily in the fine-tuning results, a harder variant of the task might down-weight pronoun clusters and focus on noun- and name-central references, which are the ones that need visual grounding.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TikTalkCoref, a Chinese multimodal coreference resolution dataset built from 1,012 Douyin short-video dialogues sampled from the TikTalk dataset. The dataset provides manual annotations of person mentions and coreference clusters in the comment text, as well as head-region bounding boxes in video frames that are cross-modally linked to the textual clusters. The authors also propose a three-module benchmark pipeline: (1) Maverick, a DeBERTa-based textual coreference resolver; (2) an automatic visual person tracking module combining YOLOv5, DeepSORT, MTCNN, and MobileFaceNet with a 0.6 cosine-similarity threshold; and (3) a CN-CLIP-based contrastive text-visual alignment module. Experiments report a text coreference average F1 of 65.46 for Maverick and a fine-tuned CN-CLIP R@1 of 60.83 for text-visual alignment on a celebrity subset, along with analyses of data augmentation and mention-type-specific retrieval accuracy. The authors state that the dataset will be released.

Significance. If the benchmark results are validated, TikTalkCoref is a valuable resource: it fills a concrete gap as the first Chinese multimodal coreference dataset for real-world social media dialogues, and its annotation process is described with sufficient detail to be replicable, including an independent double-annotation workflow with a reported MUC agreement of 78.19. The pipeline is modular and comparably simple, and the paper provides honest limitations about dataset scale and domain. However, the benchmark claim currently rests on an unvalidated automatic visual clustering step, so the reported alignment numbers cannot yet be interpreted as measuring coreference against a human gold standard.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2–4.3, Tables 5 and 7] The visual side of the alignment benchmark is constructed entirely by the automatic pipeline (YOLOv5 head detection, DeepSORT tracking, MTCNN/MobileFaceNet face clustering with a hand-set cosine threshold of 0.6), and the paper never reports any agreement between these automatic person clusters and the manually annotated head regions described in §3.3. If the automatic clustering merges distinct people, splits one person into multiple clusters, or misassigns an identity—a real risk for stitched short videos with pose and segment changes—then the positive pairs used in contrastive learning and the candidate image set used for R@K evaluation are not aligned with the human gold standard. Consequently, Tables 5 and 7 may measure retrieval among tracker identities rather than cross-modal coreference. The authors should report visual clustering quality against the manual clusters (e.g., B³ or cluster purity on the head regions) and, ideally, also report alignment results using the manual visual clusters as the candidate set to isolate the contribution of the tracking module.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (1) and L_align] The description of contrastive training for the alignment module is ambiguous: it is not specified whether the 'matching pairs of textual cluster Ck and their corresponding person head regions Ij' are derived from the manual cross-modal annotations (which link text clusters to manually drawn head boxes) or from the automatically generated visual clusters. When the visual tracking module produces incorrect clusters, the two choices lead to different models: one trained to align text to the human gold standard, the other trained to align text to tracker identities. This distinction is central to interpreting the fine-tuning gains in Table 5, and the paper must state precisely how positive and negative pairs are constructed in training.
  3. [§1, last paragraph; §6] The central claim of the paper is an introduced dataset plus reliable benchmark results, yet no dataset URL, GitHub link, or code is actually provided in the manuscript (the text merely says 'at github'). For a resource and benchmark paper, independent verification of the statistics, the IAA, and the experimental results requires access to the data and the evaluation scripts, especially given the unresolved question of visual cluster validity. The authors should provide an anonymized or permanent link to the dataset and code in the revised manuscript.
  4. [§4.2, face recognition and clustering paragraph] The fixed 0.6 cosine-similarity threshold for grouping face trajectories is a free parameter that directly controls the visual cluster quality and therefore the alignment benchmark. No sensitivity analysis is reported for this threshold or for the choice of the representative image per cluster in §4.3. Since the paper claims reliable benchmark results, a brief threshold-sweep or an explicit justification of the 0.6 value is needed to show that the reported R@K numbers are not an artifact of this specific hand-set value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are several typos: 'mutimodal' in the abstract, 'beter' in §5.2, 'TicktalkCoref' in §1, and 'base on' in §5.4. The paper should be proofread for these and for inconsistent capitalization of 'TikTalkCoref'.
  2. [§5.1, significance testing] The paper reports p < 0.001 for comparisons between Maverick and e2e-coref and between R2D2 and CN-CLIP, but it runs experiments with only three random seeds. The randomized parsing evaluation comparator (Noreen, 1989) is not the standard tool for comparing the mean of three runs of a neural model, and the reported p-value is suspiciously small for three seeds. Please clarify the exact test procedure and report confidence intervals or the per-seed values.
  3. [§3.4, Inter-Annotator Agreement] Only the MUC score is reported for inter-annotator agreement. Since the annotation task involves both mention boundaries and cluster membership, it would be more informative to also report mention-level agreement (e.g., F1 on mention spans) or B³ agreement between annotators, so that the quality of the two annotation subtasks can be assessed separately.
  4. [§4.2, notation] The symbols for clusters in the visual tracking module are not consistently defined: the paper refers to 'head regions representing the same person are grouped into a same cluster' but does not define a formal cluster variable (e.g., V_j). Aligning the notation with that used in §4.3 for the candidate image set I would improve readability.
  5. [Table 2] In the dataset comparison table, the 'Mention Type' column for TikTalkCoref is listed as 'PNs, CNs and PRs', but the descriptions in §3.2 mention proper names, common nouns, and pronouns; using the same terms in the table would avoid the unexplained abbreviations PNs/CNs/PRs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dataset and benchmark steps are independent of their outputs; the unvalidated automatic visual clustering is a validity caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is largely self-contained. Textual coreference clusters are manually annotated (Section 3.3), and the benchmark's text-side models (Maverick, e2e-coref) are fine-tuned on Train-all/Train-celeb and evaluated on held-out Dev/Test splits (Section 5.1), so these scores are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The visual-side clusters are produced by an automatic pipeline (YOLOv5, DeepSORT, MTCNN, MobileFaceNet) with a hand-set cosine threshold of 0.6 (Section 4.2), and the alignment module is trained and evaluated against correspondences defined by the dataset's manual cross-modal clusters (Section 4.3), not against the tracker's own outputs. The hand-set threshold shapes the candidate image set, but this is parameter choice, not a construction that equates the predicted quantity with an input. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems; external models (CN-CLIP, R2D2, Maverick) provide independent baselines. The main caveat—lack of reported agreement between automatic visual clusters and manual head boxes—affects benchmark validity, not circularity, and is a correctness risk rather than a circular-reasoning defect.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central resource claim rests on annotation quality assumptions and on the equivalence of automatic visual clusters to manual annotations. There are no new physical or mathematical entities, but the benchmark is sensitive to the hand-set 0.6 face-clustering threshold and to the use of automatic tracking as the visual ground truth.

free parameters (3)
  • Cosine similarity threshold for face trajectory clustering = 0.6
    Used in Section 4.2 to merge head trajectories into person clusters; directly determines which video regions count as the same person and therefore affects the alignment training and evaluation.
  • Mention start and end probability thresholds = 0.5
    Used in Section 4.1 for candidate mention detection in Maverick; standard default but hand-set.
  • Antecedent coreference threshold = 0.5
    Used in Section 4.1 to decide whether two mentions are coreferential; affects the text clusters that feed the alignment module.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Person coreference in this task can be fully represented by textual mention clusters plus one head bounding box per person per key frame.
    The annotation guidelines in Section 3.2 reduce the multimodal coreference problem to person mentions and head regions, excluding other entity types and non-head visual references.
  • domain assumption MUC inter-annotator agreement of 78.19 indicates sufficient annotation quality.
    Section 3.4 reports only this one agreement score; no per-label kappa or adjudication statistics are given, so quality is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper The automatically generated visual person clusters from YOLOv5/DeepSORT/MTCNN/MobileFaceNet are accurate enough to serve as the visual side of the alignment benchmark.
    Section 4.2 builds visual clusters from automatic face detection, tracking, and a 0.6 cosine threshold rather than from the manually annotated head boxes; the paper does not measure agreement between the two.
  • domain assumption The celebrity subset is representative enough for benchmarking the task.
    Section 5.1 restricts evaluation to 338 celebrity dialogues, and Section A.2 shows a strong skew to NBA-related male and entertainment figures, which may not generalize to all TikTalkCoref data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multimodal Coreference Resolution for Chinese Social Media Dialogues: Dataset and Benchmark Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LLGAMGOF

@misc{pith2026250414321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multimodal Coreference Resolution for Chinese Social Media Dialogues: Dataset and Benchmark Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LLGAMGOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14321}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal coreference resolution (MCR) aims to identify mentions referring to the same entity across different modalities, such as text and visuals, and is essential for understanding multimodal content. In the era of rapidly growing mutimodal content and social media, MCR is particularly crucial for interpreting user interactions and bridging text-visual references to improve communication and personalization. However, MCR research for real-world dialogues remains unexplored due to the lack of sufficient data resources. To address this gap, we introduce TikTalkCoref, the first Chinese multimodal coreference dataset for social media in real-world scenarios, derived from the popular Douyin short-video platform. This dataset pairs short videos with corresponding textual dialogues from user comments and includes manually annotated coreference clusters for both person mentions in the text and the coreferential person head regions in the corresponding video frames. We also present an effective benchmark approach for MCR, focusing on the celebrity domain, and conduct extensive experiments on our dataset, providing reliable benchmark results for this newly constructed dataset. We will release the TikTalkCoref dataset to facilitate future research on MCR for real-world social media dialogues.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14321 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of TikTalkCoref. 2017; Bohnet et al., 2023; Martinelli et al., 2024). However, with the prevalence of multimodal con￾tent in both offline real-world and online social media platforms, traditional text-based coreference resolution can no longer meet the demands of un￾derstanding and interacting with growing multime￾dia content. Therefore, multimodal coreference resolution (MCR) has recently gained widespre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our model architecture. 4.1 Textual Coreference Resolution To identify and cluster mentions referring to the same person entity in the textual dialogue, we adopt the state-of-the-art Maverick model (Mar￾tinelli et al., 2024) as our textual coreference res￾olution module, which is a pipeline method that first detects the mentions and then groups those referring to the same person. Mention Detection. I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of gender, age and occupation of persons in the TikTalkCoref. Note that the distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Annotation interface of our annotation tool. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Perception, Reason, Think, and Plan: A Survey on Large Multimodal Reasoning Models

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey organizes multimodal reasoning research into a staged roadmap and proposes native large multimodal reasoning models that unify perception, generation, and agentic planning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Amit Bagga and Breck Baldwin. 1998. Entity-based cross-document coreferencing using the vector space model. In 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 1, pages 79--85, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    David Bamman, Olivia Lewke, and Anya Mansoor. 2020. An annotated dataset of coreference in E nglish literature. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 44--54, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Bernd Bohnet, Chris Alberti, and Michael Collins. 2023. Coreference resolution through a seq2seq transition-based system. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:212--226

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Hongjie Cai, Heqing Ma, Jianfei Yu, and Rui Xia. 2024. A joint coreference-aware approach to document-level target sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12149--12160. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Chen, Ethan Zhou, and Jinho D

    Henry Y. Chen, Ethan Zhou, and Jinho D. Choi. 2017. Robust coreference resolution and entity linking on dialogues: Character identification on TV show transcripts. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning ( C o NLL 2017) , pages 216--225. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Hong Chen, Zhenhua Fan, Hao Lu, Alan Yuille, and Shu Rong. 2018 a . P re C o: A large-scale dataset in preschool vocabulary for coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 172--181, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    S. Chen, Y. Liu, X. Gao, and Z. Han. 2018 b . Mobilefacenets: Efficient cnns for accurate real-time face verification on mobile devices. In Biometric Recognition. CCBR 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 10996, pages 329--338. Springer, Cham

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Abbas Ghaddar and Phillippe Langlais. 2016. W iki C oref: An E nglish coreference-annotated corpus of W ikipedia articles. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ( LREC '16) , pages 136--142, Portoro z , Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA)

    work page 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Arushi Goel, Basura Fernando, Frank Keller, and Hakan Bilen. 2023. Who are you referring to? coreference resolution in image narrations. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 15201--15212

    2023

  2. [10]

    Danfeng Guo, Arpit Gupta, Sanchit Agarwal, Jiun-Yu Kao, Shuyang Gao, Arijit Biswas, Chien-Wei Lin, Tagyoung Chung, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. GRAVL - BERT : Graphical visual-linguistic representations for multimodal coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 29th International...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Deberta: decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021 . OpenReview.net

    2021

  4. [12]

    Jerry R. Hobbs. 1978. Resolving pronoun references. Lingua, 44(4):311--338

    1978

  5. [13]

    Eduard Hovy, Mitchell Marcus, Martha Palmer, Lance Ramshaw, and Ralph Weischedel. 2006. O nto N otes: The 90 \ In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL , Companion Volume: Short Papers , pages 57--60, New York City, USA. Association for Computati...

    2006

  6. [14]

    Yin Jou Huang and Sadao Kurohashi. 2021. Extractive summarization considering discourse and coreference relations based on heterogeneous graph. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 30...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy

    Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. S pan BERT : Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64--77

    2020

  8. [16]

    Satwik Kottur, Seungwhan Moon, Alborz Geramifard, and Babak Damavandi. 2021. SIMMC 2.0: A task-oriented dialog dataset for immersive multimodal conversations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4903--4912, Online an...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188--197, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2017

  10. [18]

    Kenton Lee, Luheng He, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Higher-order coreference resolution with coarse-to-fine inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (S...

    2018

  11. [19]

    Hongpeng Lin, Ludan Ruan, Wenke Xia, Peiyu Liu, Jingyuan Wen, Yixin Xu, Di Hu, Ruihua Song, Wayne Xin Zhao, Qin Jin, and Zhiwu Lu. 2023. Tiktalk: A video-based dialogue dataset for multi-modal chitchat in real world. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on M...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Xiaoqiang Luo. 2005. On coreference resolution performance metrics. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 25--32, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2005

  13. [21]

    Giuliano Martinelli, Edoardo Barba, and Roberto Navigli. 2024. Maverick: Efficient and accurate coreference resolution defying recent trends. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13380--13394,...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Eric W. Noreen. 1989. Computer-intensive methods for testing hypotheses: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York

    1989

  15. [23]

    Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Olga Uryupina, and Yuchen Zhang. 2012. C o NLL -2012 shared task: Modeling multilingual unrestricted coreference in O nto N otes. In Joint Conference on EMNLP and C o NLL - Shared Task , Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Com...

    2012

  16. [24]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Ramanathan, A

    V. Ramanathan, A. Joulin, P. Liang, and L. Fei-Fei. 2014. Linking people in videos with ``their" names using coreference resolution. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2014, volume 8689 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 96--110, Cham. Springer

    2014

  18. [26]

    Anna Rohrbach, Marcus Rohrbach, Siyu Tang, Seong Joon Oh, and Bernt Schiele. 2017. Generating descriptions with grounded and co-referenced people. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4196--4206

    2017

  19. [27]

    Label Studio. 2024. https://labelstud.io/ Label studio . Accessed: 2024-11-14

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nobuhiro Ueda, Hideko Habe, Akishige Yuguchi, Seiya Kawano, Yasutomo Kawanishi, Sadao Kurohashi, and Koichiro Yoshino. 2024. J - CR e3: A J apanese conversation dataset for real-world reference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computatio...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Marc Vilain, John Burger, John Aberdeen, Dennis Connolly, and Lynette Hirschman. 1995. A model-theoretic coreference scoring scheme. In Sixth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-6): Proceedings of a Conference Held in Columbia, Maryland, November 6-8, 1995, Columbia, Maryland

    1995

  22. [30]

    Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, 57(45)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Kellie Webster, Marta Recasens, Vera Axelrod, and Jason Baldridge. 2018. Mind the GAP: A Balanced Corpus of Gendered Ambiguous Pronouns . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:605--617

    2018

  24. [32]

    Bram Willemsen, Livia Qian, and Gabriel Skantze. 2023. Resolving references in visually-grounded dialogue via text generation. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 457--469, Prague, Czechia. Association for Co...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Nicolai Wojke, Alex Bewley, and Dietrich Paulus. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2017.8296962 Simple online and realtime tracking with a deep association metric . In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 3645--3649. IEEE

    2017

  26. [34]

    Chunyu Xie, Heng Cai, Jincheng Li, Fanjing Kong, Xiaoyu Wu, Jianfei Song, Henrique Morimitsu, Lin Yao, Dexin Wang, Xiangzheng Zhang, et al. 2023. Ccmb: A large-scale chinese cross-modal benchmark. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 4219--4227

    2023

  27. [35]

    An Yang, Junshu Pan, Junyang Lin, Rui Men, Yichang Zhang, Jingren Zhou, and Chang Zhou. 2022. Chinese clip: Contrastive vision-language pretraining in chinese. CoRR, abs/2211.01335

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Xintong Yu, Hongming Zhang, Yangqiu Song, Yan Song, and Changshui Zhang. 2019. What you see is what you get: Visual pronoun coreference resolution in dialogues. In Proceedings of EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019 , pages 5122--5131. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2019

  29. [37]

    Amir Zeldes. 2017. The GUM corpus: Creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Language Resources and Evaluation, 51(3):581--612

    2017

  30. [38]

    Kaipeng Zhang, Zhanpeng Zhang, Zhifeng Li, and Yu Qiao. 2016. Joint face detection and alignment using multitask cascaded convolutional networks. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 23(10):1499--1503

    2016

  31. [39]

    Wenzheng Zhang, Sam Wiseman, and Karl Stratos. 2023. Seq2seq is all you need for coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11493--11504, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2023

  32. [40]

    Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Huma...

    2018

  33. [41]

    Yilun Zhu, Sameer Pradhan, and Amir Zeldes. 2021. OntoGUM : Evaluating contextualized SOTA coreference resolution on 12 more genres. In Proceedings of ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 461--467, Bangkok, Thailand

    2021

  34. [42]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  35. [43]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.