What do we Really Know about State of the Art NER?
This work addresses the need for more comprehensive evaluation in NER research, which is incremental as it focuses on assessment rather than new methods.
The paper tackled the problem of limited understanding of state-of-the-art Named Entity Recognition (NER) models by conducting a broad evaluation across different text genres and adversarial test sets, revealing gaps in performance robustness and recommending improved reporting practices.
Named Entity Recognition (NER) is a well researched NLP task and is widely used in real world NLP scenarios. NER research typically focuses on the creation of new ways of training NER, with relatively less emphasis on resources and evaluation. Further, state of the art (SOTA) NER models, trained on standard datasets, typically report only a single performance measure (F-score) and we don't really know how well they do for different entity types and genres of text, or how robust are they to new, unseen entities. In this paper, we perform a broad evaluation of NER using a popular dataset, that takes into consideration various text genres and sources constituting the dataset at hand. Additionally, we generate six new adversarial test sets through small perturbations in the original test set, replacing select entities while retaining the context. We also train and test our models on randomly generated train/dev/test splits followed by an experiment where the models are trained on a select set of genres but tested genres not seen in training. These comprehensive evaluation strategies were performed using three SOTA NER models. Based on our results, we recommend some useful reporting practices for NER researchers, that could help in providing a better understanding of a SOTA model's performance in future.