R1-RE: Cross-Domain Relation Extraction with RLVR

Hongtu Zhu; Kaixian Yu; Runpeng Dai; Run Yang; Tong Zheng

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

R1-RE: Cross-Domain Relation Extraction with RLVR

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 7B model trained with reinforcement learning and annotation guides reaches about 70 percent out-of-domain accuracy, on par with GPT-4o.

desk verdict Solid RLVR-for-RE application with strong public OOD gains, but the GPT-4o parity headline rests on one private benchmark and needs external validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04642 v2 pith:OYOJPADF submitted 2025-07-07 cs.CL

Runpeng Dai , Tong Zheng , Run Yang , Kaixian Yu , Hongtu Zhu This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords relationextractionout-of-domaingeneralizationreinforcementlearningwithverifiablerewardGRPOannotationguidelineschain-of-thoughtreasoninglargelanguagemodelSemEval-2010

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 tries to establish that relation extraction can be treated as a reasoning task rather than a label-mapping task: the model is given the annotation guide, asked to think in steps, and trained with reinforcement learning whose only feedback is whether its final answer is formatted correctly and matches the gold relation. The resulting 7B model, R1-RE-7B, reaches about 70 percent average out-of-domain accuracy on a private mental-health knowledge graph dataset, which the paper reports as on par with GPT-4o and GPT-4.1-mini. This matters because it suggests a small open-weight model, trained with cheap rule-based rewards, can replace much larger API models for cross-domain relation classification. The paper also reports that this training preserves or improves performance on math, instruction-following, and knowledge benchmarks, unlike supervised fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-component rule-based reward, combined with the annotation-guide prompt and the GRPO optimizer. The format reward uses regex checks to require <think> and <answer> tags and an answer of the form y(e1,e2) or y(e2,e1); the accuracy reward gives positive or negative signal depending on whether the final relation matches the gold label. Because format violations skip the metric reward, the model must first learn the output contract and then learn to reason within it. GRPO converts the group's rewards into per-token advantages with a KL penalty to the reference model, which is what makes long step-by-step guideline comparison emerge during training.

What would settle it

Have the authors release the MDKG test set (or an equivalent private benchmark) and evaluate R1-RE-7B against GPT-4o using a single greedy sample rather than the best-of-four Avg@4 average; if R1-RE-7B's single-response accuracy is substantially lower than GPT-4o's, the 'on par' claim does not transfer to typical deployment. An even cleaner check is to run the same RLVR recipe on a third, fully public relation dataset with its annotation guide and compare single-sample OOD accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reinforcement learning with a verifiable rule-based reward, applied to prompts that embed the task's annotation guide, elicits annotation-style reasoning in a small language model and substantially improves out-of-domain relation classification. On the paper's own evaluation, R1-RE-7B improves out-of-domain accuracy over its base model by about 30 percentage points, and on the private MDKG test set its average accuracy is comparable to GPT-4o and GPT-4.1-mini. The paper further argues that the learned behavior is genuinely human-like: the model first identifies entities, then compares each candidate relation against the definitions in the guide, following a hypothesis-validation procedure before answering. It also reports that adding a second public dataset (SemEval-2018 Task 7) to training improves out-of-domain accuracy by roughly 4 points, and that the RL training does not degrade performance on unrelated benchmarks the way supervised fine-tuning does.

Load-bearing premise

The headline parity rests on the private MDKG dataset being a fair, genuinely out-of-domain test with reliable gold labels, and on the Avg@4 metric representing the accuracy a user would actually get; if the dataset is unrepresentative or the metric overstates single-answer performance, the comparison to GPT-4o collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An open-weight 7B model can reach out-of-domain relation classification accuracy comparable to proprietary API models, reducing the need for API access in this task.
A verifiable reward that checks format and final answer is enough to elicit multi-step annotation reasoning, without process supervision or distillation.
Adding complementary public relation datasets to RLVR training further improves out-of-domain accuracy, so the approach can keep gaining from more diverse data.
Because RL training preserved or improved MATH-500, IFEval, and GPQA scores while SFT lowered them, RLVR for relation extraction does not appear to trade away general capability.
The same reward design extends to triplet extraction through an F1-based entity and triplet reward, so the paradigm is not limited to relation classification.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of the paper's causal story: if the annotation guide is the key ingredient, then degrading the guide (fewer edge cases, vaguer definitions) should lower out-of-domain accuracy; this is a cheap ablation the paper did not run.
The Avg@4 protocol averages accuracy over four generated samples; deployed systems that take only one answer would see lower numbers. Comparing greedy or single-sample accuracy against GPT-4o under the same protocol would clarify whether the parity claim survives realistic use.
The data-leakage explanation for low Sem-2010 scores is asserted rather than demonstrated. An independent contamination probe (testing whether API models' training data include Sem-2010 examples verbatim) would settle whether the public benchmark's leaderboard numbers are inflated.
If RLVR works for relation classification because it teaches guideline comparison, the same recipe should transfer to other knowledge-extraction tasks with written guidelines and rule-checkable outputs, such as event extraction or fine-grained entity typing.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Runpeng and colleagues apply RLVR with GRPO and rule-based rewards to relation classification, prompting the model with annotation guidelines and training it to reason through the guideline. The genuinely new piece is the annotation-guideline reasoning framing and the empirical demonstration on Sem-2010 that a 7B model gains 30 points OOD over the base and 16 over SFT. That result is clearly reported and is the paper's real contribution.

The training-dynamics plots and the preserved performance on MATH-500, IFEval, and GPQA also earn their place. Checking that RL training does not degrade unrelated tasks is a useful control, and the slight improvement is a bonus.

The soft spots are real but concentrated. I share the stress-test worry: the close GPT-4o match appears only on MDKG, and one private benchmark cannot support a general parity claim. Even with the added Sem-2018 data, the bidirectional average of the R1-RE models stays a few points below GPT-4o. MDKG is described only as a 'human-annotated proprietary corpus' with no construction details, no annotator agreement, and no release plan, so the claim is not independently checkable. The Avg@4 metric is mentioned but not precisely defined, though it seems to be mean Pass@1 across four samples. More importantly, the paper explains the lower Sem-2010 OOD accuracy of the MDKG-trained model as 'data leakage' in Sem-2010, but gives no evidence for that; it reads as a post hoc rationalization. If the authors cannot substantiate leakage, they should drop the explanation and just report the numbers.

No code or hyperparameters are released, which hurts reproducibility, and the reward coefficients are hand-set without ablation. Minor, but worth noting. The limitation section is honest: only 7B and RC are covered, with TE left to future work.

Overall, the central methodological claim—RLVR with guideline prompts improves OOD relation classification—holds up on the public data. The parity claim is overblown and needs a second public OOD benchmark plus a proper evaluation protocol before it can be accepted. This is a serious paper that deserves a thorough referee, but I would expect the referee to press hard on the private dataset and the leakage claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes R1-RE, a reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR) framework for relation extraction. The key idea is to reframe relation classification as a reasoning task guided by annotation guidelines: the model is prompted with the guideline and asked to produce a chain-of-thought ending in a relation answer, and is trained with GRPO using a rule-based reward that combines a format reward and an exact-match accuracy reward. The authors evaluate on the public Sem-2010 dataset and a private MDKG dataset, reporting that R1-RE-7B substantially improves out-of-domain accuracy over the base model and an SFT baseline. They further claim that R1-RE-7B is 'on par with leading proprietary models such as GPT-4o,' based on the private MDKG test set, and they provide analyses of training dynamics, generalization to other tasks, and additional data scaling.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is a useful contribution: it demonstrates that RLVR with rule-based rewards can elicit annotation-style reasoning in a 7B open model and improve cross-domain relation classification, a practically valuable alternative to large proprietary APIs. The public Sem-2010 results are reported clearly and show large OOD gains over the base model and SFT. The training-dynamics analysis and the check that RL does not degrade other-task performance are informative strengths. However, the headline parity claim rests on a single private dataset and an ambiguously defined sampling metric, so the significance is conditional on strengthening the evaluation evidence.

major comments (4)

[Abstract, §4.2, Table 3] The abstract states that R1-RE-7B attains an average OOD accuracy of approximately 70%, but Table 3 reports OOD accuracies of 65.8 (MDKG for the Sem-trained model) and 66.5 (Sem-2010 for the MDKG-trained model), which average to about 66%. Please correct the abstract and the corresponding claim in §4.2 to match the reported numbers, or specify exactly what quantity the 70% refers to.
[§4.1, §4.2, Table 3] The claim that R1-RE-7B is 'on par with GPT-4o' rests entirely on the private MDKG dataset. §4.1 describes MDKG only as a 'human-annotated proprietary corpus' with no details on sentence selection, annotation procedure, inter-annotator agreement, or release plan, and the annotation guide in Appendix Table 6 was written by the authors. Because the test set is private and the authors built it, the result cannot be independently verified, and a single private benchmark cannot support the general cross-domain parity claim. Please provide a second public OOD evaluation under the same protocol, or soften the claim to 'on this private benchmark at the time of evaluation.'
[§4.2, Table 3, metric definition] The metric Avg@4 is defined as 'the average Pass@1 accuracy across four samples,' which is ambiguous. If it denotes the average per-sample accuracy over four generations, that is not the standard pass@k; if it denotes the probability that at least one of four generations is correct, the value is expected to be substantially higher than single-sample accuracy and the comparison would be misleading. Please specify the exact sampling procedure and formula, and report single-sample (Pass@1) accuracy alongside Avg@4 for all models in Table 3.
[§4.2] The statement that the public Sem-2010 benchmark 'may suffer from data leakage' is presented as a post hoc explanation for the relatively lower Sem-2010 accuracy of R1-RE-7B. No evidence is provided, such as contamination analysis, training-date comparisons, or an independent probe, and the claim is used to rationalize an unfavorable result. This unsupported explanation should be removed or replaced with a concrete test; as written, it functions as an unfalsifiable assumption.

minor comments (6)

[Figure 4] There are typos in the prompt template: 'Please thinks about the reasoning process in the mind' should be 'Please think about the reasoning process in your mind,' and 'aligh' should be 'align.'
[Appendix C, Figure 7] The prompt says 'The assistant first thinks out load and then provides the user with the final answer'; 'out load' should be 'aloud.'
[Table 3 caption] The caption says 'all the models use the Template in 4'; this should refer to Figure 4.
[§2.2] The GRPO objective contains malformed notation, including 'πi,tθ' and 'πi,tθold' with missing subscripts and an incomplete clipping expression; the typesetting should be fixed for readability.
[§3.1] The sentence 'existing relation extraction methods always focus on learning mappings between sentences and golden labels' overgeneralizes the field; consider softening to 'many existing approaches.'
[Limitations] The Limitations section discusses only model size and the TE task; it would be appropriate to also list the dependence of the central parity claim on a single private dataset as a limitation of the evaluation evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the RLVR objective is trained against held-out gold labels and the OOD claim is an independent empirical result, not a construction of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. R1-RE optimizes a rule-based format-plus-accuracy reward against gold-standard relation labels (Section 3.3), and evaluates on held-out test splits of Sem-2010 and the private MDKG corpus (Sections 4.1 and 4.2). The headline OOD accuracy is obtained by training on Sem-2010 and testing on MDKG, whose labels were not used in training or reward computation, so the comparison with GPT-4o is an empirical result rather than a fitted or renamed input. The reward coefficients are hand-set, not fitted to test performance, and no parameter is tuned to the target test set. The incidental self-citations (e.g., Dai et al. 2025 and Zheng et al. 2025) are background references on catastrophic forgetting and distillation, not load-bearing evidence for the central claim. The 'data leakage' explanation for lower Sem-2010 scores is a post hoc narrative and unproven, but it is an interpretation, not a circular derivation step. Similarly, the private, unreleased MDKG benchmark raises verifiability and dataset-construction concerns, but those are data-quality issues rather than circularity. No equation or claim reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on hand-set reward coefficients, an unverified private dataset, and the transfer assumption underlying annotation-guideline reasoning. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Format reward coefficients = r_format=1 correct, -3 incorrect
Hand-set in Section 3.3 to enforce output structure; no analysis of sensitivity or justification.
Metric reward coefficients = r_metric=2 correct, -1.5 incorrect
Hand-set in Section 3.3; balances accuracy against format penalty; no tuning analysis.
GRPO hyperparameters = Not reported
Epsilon, beta KL penalty, group size G, learning rate, and number of steps are not listed; these affect training dynamics and final accuracy.
TE reward weights = w_ent=1, w_tri=3
Set in Appendix B.1 for triplet extraction, which is not the main RC result but is a designed free parameter of the framework.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption RLVR with GRPO improves reasoning in small language models.
Section 2.2 and 5.1 cite DeepSeek-R1 and related work; the paper relies on this prior empirical result without re-deriving it.
domain assumption Annotation guidelines fully define the relations and the reasoning process transfers across domains.
Section 3.1 states human annotation is a universal multi-step reasoning process; this is the conceptual premise for OOD transfer.
domain assumption Exact match to gold labels is a verifiable reward with no reward hacking.
Section 3.3 defines rule-based rewards solely on format correctness and exact label match; no analysis of reward hacking or label noise.
domain assumption The MDKG dataset is correctly labeled and its test set is out-of-domain relative to Sem-2010.
Section 4.1 describes MDKG as a private corpus; no construction details, annotation agreement, or contamination checks are given.
ad hoc to paper The Sem-2010 public benchmark suffers from data leakage.
Section 4.2 uses leakage to explain why R1-RE's OOD score on Sem-2010 (66.5) is below GPT-4o (79.8); no evidence or citation supports this.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of R1-RE: Cross-Domain Relation Extraction with RLVR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYOJPADF

@misc{pith2026250704642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: R1-RE: Cross-Domain Relation Extraction with RLVR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYOJPADF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04642}
}

read the original abstract

Relation extraction (RE) is a core task in natural language processing. Traditional approaches typically frame RE as a supervised learning problem, directly mapping context to labels-an approach that often suffers from poor out-of-domain (OOD) generalization. Inspired by the workflow of human annotators, we reframe RE as a reasoning task guided by annotation guidelines and introduce R1-RE, the first reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR) framework for RE tasks. Our method elicits the reasoning abilities of small language models for annotation tasks, resulting in significantly improved OOD robustness. We evaluate our approach on the public Sem-2010 dataset and a private MDKG dataset. The R1-RE-7B model attains an average OOD accuracy of approximately 70%, on par with leading proprietary models such as GPT-4o. Additionally, our comprehensive analysis provides novel insights into the training dynamics and emergent reasoning behaviors of the RLVR paradigm for RE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04642 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) Test accuracy on two RE datasets with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The prompt for RC tasks. 3.2 R1-RE Our goal is to elicit human-like annotation behaviour in the LLM-based RE pipeline. Achieving this, however, is far from trivial. Preliminary experiments show that simply prompting an LLM to emulate the annotation procedure yields unsatisfactory results. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: A comparison of existing RE training paradigm and the annotation process of human annotators. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) Training dynamics of R1-RE (Sem-2010), with the left y-axis representing the training reward and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Case study comparing the chain-of-thought (COT) reasoning of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The prompt for TE tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

StatEval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Large Language Models in Statistics
cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

StatEval is a new 16,000-question statistics benchmark showing that even strong LLMs score below 60% on research-level statistical proof tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Use X to treat Y

Application in Treatment: Phrases like "Use X to treat Y", "X is a treatment/intervention for Y" or "Y treated/medicated with X" indicate the use of X in the treatment of Y

work page
[2]

X is hyponym-of Y

Signs of Improvement: Phrases where X ’improves’, ’alleviates’, ’suppresses’, ’shows efficacy in’, ’benefits’, ’prevents’, or ’reverses’ Y , suggesting a beneficial impact of X on Y . hyponym-of: This relation can indicate a hierarchical link, with X being a subordinate or specific instance of Y , or a constitutive link, showing that X is a component or p...

work page
[3]

The sentence mentions that these antipsychotics are used specifically in the context of women with schizophrenia, implying a therapeutic use

**Apply the definitions**: - **treatment-for**: This relation would apply if the antipsychotics are used to treat or manage schizophrenia. The sentence mentions that these antipsychotics are used specifically in the context of women with schizophrenia, implying a therapeutic use. - **risk-factor-of**: This would apply if the antipsychotics increased the r...

work page
[4]

being treated with,

**Conclusion**: - The sentence clearly states that these antipsychotics are being used in the context of women with schizophrenia. This implies that the antipsychotics are a form of treatment specifically for schizophrenia. The key phrase is "being treated with," which indicates that the antipsychotics are used to manage or treat the condition of schizoph...

work page
[5]

InProceedings of the conference

Revisiting relation extraction in the era of large language models. InProceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2023, page 15566. Zhen Wan, Fei Cheng, Zhuoyuan Mao, Qianying Liu, Haiyue Song, Jiwei Li, and Sadao Kurohashi

work page 2023
[6]

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, and 1 others

Gpt-re: In-context learning for relation ex- traction using large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02105. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, and 1 others. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elic- its reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:...

arXiv 2022
[7]

Yue Yang, Kaixian Yu, Shan Gao, Sheng Yu, Di Xiong, Chuanyang Qin, Huiyuan Chen, Jiarui Tang, Nian- sheng Tang, and Hongtu Zhu

How to unleash the power of large language models for few-shot relation extraction?arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01555. Yue Yang, Kaixian Yu, Shan Gao, Sheng Yu, Di Xiong, Chuanyang Qin, Huiyuan Chen, Jiarui Tang, Nian- sheng Tang, and Hongtu Zhu. 2024. Alzheimer’s disease knowledge graph enhances knowledge dis- covery and disease prediction.bioRxiv. Shunyu Y...

arXiv 2024
[8]

X is risk-factor-of Y

Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822. Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Weinan Dai, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, and 1 others. 2025. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale.arXiv prepr...

arXiv 2023

Show all 14 references

[11]

- <e2>prolactin-increasing antipsychotics</e2> is a type of medication or treatment

**Identify the entities**: - <e1>schizophrenia</e1> is the disease or condition. - <e2>prolactin-increasing antipsychotics</e2> is a type of medication or treatment
[12]

- We need to determine if this relation is that schizophrenia leads to or is treated by these antipsychotics, or if it’s some other relation

**Analyze the relation**: - The sentence states that schizophrenia is associated with a specific type of antipsychotics (prolactin-increasing antipsychotics) being used in the treatment or management of schizophrenia. - We need to determine if this relation is that schizophren...
[1999]

In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, pages 278–287

Policy invariance under reward transforma- tions: Theory and application to reward shaping. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, pages 278–287. David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jack- son Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Jul...

2024 arXiv
[2023]

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, and 1 others

Core: A few-shot company relation classifi- cation dataset for robust domain adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12024. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, an...

arXiv
[2024]

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shi- rong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, and 1 others

A survey on llm-as-a-judge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15594. Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shi- rong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, and 1 others. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement le...

2025 arXiv
[2025]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova

Breach in the shield: Unveiling the vulner- abilities of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03714. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. InProceed...

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Use X to treat Y

Application in Treatment: Phrases like "Use X to treat Y", "X is a treatment/intervention for Y" or "Y treated/medicated with X" indicate the use of X in the treatment of Y

work page

[2] [2]

X is hyponym-of Y

Signs of Improvement: Phrases where X ’improves’, ’alleviates’, ’suppresses’, ’shows efficacy in’, ’benefits’, ’prevents’, or ’reverses’ Y , suggesting a beneficial impact of X on Y . hyponym-of: This relation can indicate a hierarchical link, with X being a subordinate or specific instance of Y , or a constitutive link, showing that X is a component or p...

work page

[3] [3]

The sentence mentions that these antipsychotics are used specifically in the context of women with schizophrenia, implying a therapeutic use

**Apply the definitions**: - **treatment-for**: This relation would apply if the antipsychotics are used to treat or manage schizophrenia. The sentence mentions that these antipsychotics are used specifically in the context of women with schizophrenia, implying a therapeutic use. - **risk-factor-of**: This would apply if the antipsychotics increased the r...

work page

[4] [4]

being treated with,

**Conclusion**: - The sentence clearly states that these antipsychotics are being used in the context of women with schizophrenia. This implies that the antipsychotics are a form of treatment specifically for schizophrenia. The key phrase is "being treated with," which indicates that the antipsychotics are used to manage or treat the condition of schizoph...

work page

[5] [5]

InProceedings of the conference

Revisiting relation extraction in the era of large language models. InProceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2023, page 15566. Zhen Wan, Fei Cheng, Zhuoyuan Mao, Qianying Liu, Haiyue Song, Jiwei Li, and Sadao Kurohashi

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, and 1 others

Gpt-re: In-context learning for relation ex- traction using large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02105. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, and 1 others. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elic- its reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:...

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Yue Yang, Kaixian Yu, Shan Gao, Sheng Yu, Di Xiong, Chuanyang Qin, Huiyuan Chen, Jiarui Tang, Nian- sheng Tang, and Hongtu Zhu

How to unleash the power of large language models for few-shot relation extraction?arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01555. Yue Yang, Kaixian Yu, Shan Gao, Sheng Yu, Di Xiong, Chuanyang Qin, Huiyuan Chen, Jiarui Tang, Nian- sheng Tang, and Hongtu Zhu. 2024. Alzheimer’s disease knowledge graph enhances knowledge dis- covery and disease prediction.bioRxiv. Shunyu Y...

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

X is risk-factor-of Y

Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822. Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Weinan Dai, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, and 1 others. 2025. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale.arXiv prepr...

arXiv 2023