Rethinking Relation Extraction: Beyond Shortcuts to Generalization with a Debiased Benchmark

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2501.01349
• Title: Rethinking Relation Extraction: Beyond Shortcuts to Generalization with a Debiased Benchmark
• Authors: Liang He, Yougang Chu, Zhen Wu, Jianbing Zhang, Xinyu Dai, Jiajun Chen (Nanjing University)
• Category: cs.AI
• Publication Date: January 2, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01349

Abstract

Benchmark datasets are crucial for evaluating machine learning algorithm performance, but biases in datasets cause models to learn shortcut patterns, leading to inaccurate evaluation and hindering practical applications. This paper addresses the entity bias problem in relation extraction tasks, where models tend to rely on entity mentions rather than context. The authors propose DREB (Debiased Relation Extraction Benchmark), which breaks spurious correlations between entity mentions and relation types through entity replacement. DREB employs a bias evaluator and perplexity evaluator to ensure low bias and high naturalness. To establish new baselines on DREB, the authors introduce MixDebias, which combines data-level and model-level debiasing techniques.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

There exists a serious entity bias problem in relation extraction tasks:

1. Spurious Correlations: False statistical correlations exist between entity mentions and relation types
2. Shortcut Learning: Models excessively rely on entity names rather than contextual information for predictions
3. Poor Generalization: Model performance drops significantly when entities are replaced or removed

Problem Significance

• In the TACRED dataset, more than half of instances can be correctly predicted using only entity mentions
• State-of-the-art models such as LUKE and IRE show F1 score decreases of 30%-50% after entity replacement
• Large language models ignore contradictory or underrepresented contextual information, over-relying on biased parametric knowledge

Limitations of Existing Methods

Data Level:

• Existing debiasing methods may introduce new biases
• Wang et al.'s approach leads to distribution bias
• ENTRED's entity replacement lacks semantic constraints

Model Level:

• DFL may damage in-domain performance
• R-Drop lacks fine-grained control over entity bias
• CoRE's post-processing nature cannot completely eliminate biases learned during training

Core Contributions

1. Proposes DREB Benchmark: The first debiased relation extraction benchmark specifically targeting entity bias, ensuring models cannot make predictions relying solely on entity mentions
2. Designs Dual Evaluation Mechanism: Bias evaluator and perplexity evaluator ensure low bias and high naturalness
3. Develops MixDebias Method: A new baseline method combining data-level and model-level debiasing
4. Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation: Validates method effectiveness and robustness across multiple datasets

Method Details

DREB Benchmark Construction

Overall Architecture

DREB breaks spurious correlations between entity mentions and relation types through entity replacement strategy:

1. Entity Replacement: Query same-type entities from Wikidata for replacement
2. Bias Evaluation: Use neural networks to assess bias degree of replaced samples
3. Naturalness Assurance: Ensure naturalness of generated samples through perplexity evaluator

Bias Evaluator

The bias evaluator models spurious correlations of entity bias:

• Feature extraction function φ(x) extracts entity bias features
• Neural network F: φ(x) → y directly models correlations
• Output F(φ(x)) reflects inherent bias of sample x

Perplexity Evaluator

Uses GPT-2 to compute sample perplexity, ensuring naturalness of generated samples:

$\log PPL(W) = -\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\log P(w_i|w_1,...,w_{i-1})$

Samples with lowest perplexity are selected as final generated samples.

MixDebias Debiasing Method

Data-Level Debiasing (RDA)

Generate augmented samples through entity replacement, using KL divergence constraint:

$L_{RDA} = \frac{1}{2}(D_{KL}(P||P_{aug}) + D_{KL}(P_{aug}||P))$

where P and P_aug are probability distributions of original and augmented samples respectively.

Model-Level Debiasing (CDA)

Use causal effect estimation to identify and quantify entity bias:

1. Bias Probability Estimation: $P_{bias} = P - \lambda P_{context}$
2. Debiased Focal Loss: $L_{CDA} = -(1-P_{bias}^j)\log P^j$

Joint Loss Function

$L_{MixDebias} = L_{CDA} + \beta L_{RDA}$

$= -(1-(P^j-\lambda P_{context}^j))\log P^j + \frac{\beta}{2}(D_{KL}(P||P_{aug}) + D_{KL}(P_{aug}||P))$

Technical Innovations

1. Dual Quality Control: Simultaneously considers bias degree and naturalness
2. Distribution Preservation: DREB maintains the same relation distribution as original dataset
3. Multi-Level Debiasing: Organic combination of data-level and model-level methods
4. Dynamic Augmentation: Dynamically generate augmented samples during training

Experimental Setup

Datasets

• TACRED: Widely-used relation extraction dataset
• TACREV: Revised version of TACRED addressing annotation and noise issues
• Re-TACRED: Dataset with redesigned relation types

Evaluation Metrics

1. F1 Score: Harmonic mean of precision and recall
2. Bias Mitigation Efficiency (BME): $BME = \alpha \cdot \frac{F1_{origin}}{\tilde{F1}_{origin}} + (1-\alpha) \cdot \frac{F1_{DREB}}{\tilde{F1}_{DREB}}$ where α=0.5

Comparison Methods

Base Models:

• LUKE: Transformer-based entity-aware model
• IRE: Improved baseline introducing typed entity markers

Debiasing Methods:

• Focal Loss: Reduces impact of easy samples
• R-Drop: Improves generalization through dropout consistency
• DFL: Adjusts loss function based on bias model
• PoE: Product of experts model
• CoRE: Causal graph debiasing method

Implementation Details

• Hyperparameters β∈0.0,1.0, λ∈-0.6,0.6
• Optimal settings: β=0.8, λ=0.2
• Uses standard relation extraction training pipeline

Experimental Results

Main Results

Key Findings

1. Significant Performance Improvement: MixDebias shows most significant performance gains on DREB, with F1 score improvements of 15-40 percentage points
2. Original Performance Preservation: Maintains or slightly improves performance on original datasets
3. Leading BME Metric: Far exceeds other methods on comprehensive evaluation metric BME
4. Consistent Performance: Demonstrates excellent performance across all three datasets

Ablation Study

Key Insights:

• RDA is the more critical component; removing it causes significant performance degradation
• CDA provides complementary effects, further optimizing debiasing
• Both components complement each other, achieving optimal performance together

Hyperparameter Analysis

• β Parameter: Controls KL divergence weight; optimal at β=0.8
• λ Parameter: Controls causal effect estimation; optimal at λ=0.2
• On noisy datasets (TACRED, TACREV), appropriate β values can also improve original dataset performance

Generalization Ability Analysis

Visualization of label probability distributions with entity-only input shows:

• Baseline model probabilities concentrate near value 1
• After MixDebias, probability distribution becomes more uniform
• Spurious correlations between entity mentions and relation types significantly reduced

Related Work

Data-Level Debiasing

• Wang et al.'s filtering evaluation setup
• ENTRED's type constraints and random entity replacement
• Issues with distribution bias and insufficient semantic constraints

Model-Level Debiasing

• DFL's loss function adjustment
• R-Drop's output distribution consistency
• CoRE's causal graph method
• Trade-offs between maintaining original performance and debiasing effects

Advantages of This Work

• First specialized debiased benchmark
• Comprehensive method combining data and model levels
• Rigorous quality control mechanisms

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. DREB Benchmark Effectiveness: Successfully breaks spurious correlations between entity mentions and relation types
2. MixDebias Method Superiority: Achieves optimal balance between debiasing effects and original performance preservation
3. Universality of Entity Bias: Existing state-of-the-art models commonly suffer from serious entity bias

Limitations

1. Computational Overhead: Dynamic generation of augmented samples increases training time
2. External Resource Dependency: Requires external knowledge base (Wikidata) support
3. Language Limitations: Primarily validated on English datasets
4. Relation Type Coverage: Tested only on sentence-level relation extraction

Future Directions

1. Cross-Lingual Extension: Extend method to other languages
2. Document-Level Relation Extraction: Adapt to more complex relation extraction scenarios
3. Computational Efficiency Optimization: Reduce computational overhead during training
4. Theoretical Analysis: Provide deeper theoretical guarantees

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

Technical Innovation

1. Accurate Problem Identification: Precisely identifies and quantifies entity bias in relation extraction
2. Reasonable Method Design: Dual evaluation mechanism ensures benchmark quality; multi-level debiasing strategy is scientifically effective
3. Rigorous Experimental Design: Comprehensive comparative experiments, ablation studies, and visualization analysis

Academic Contributions

1. Benchmark Contribution: DREB fills the gap in debiased evaluation for relation extraction
2. Method Innovation: MixDebias provides new debiasing paradigm
3. Empirical Value: Reveals limitations of existing methods, providing direction for future research

Experimental Sufficiency

1. Multi-Dataset Validation: Verified on three mainstream datasets
2. Multi-Angle Analysis: Performance comparison, ablation studies, hyperparameter analysis, visualization, etc.
3. Statistical Significance: Results are statistically meaningful

Weaknesses

Method Limitations

1. Computational Complexity: Requires dynamic generation of augmented samples during training, increasing computational overhead
2. External Dependency: Relies on external resources like Wikidata, potentially affecting method generality
3. Hyperparameter Sensitivity: β and λ parameters require careful tuning

Experimental Setup

1. Language Singularity: Validated only on English datasets, lacking cross-lingual validation
2. Task Scope Limitation: Considers only sentence-level relation extraction
3. Baseline Selection: Could include more recent debiasing methods for comparison

Insufficient Theoretical Analysis

1. Missing Theoretical Guarantees: Lacks theoretical analysis of method effectiveness
2. Convergence Analysis: No convergence guarantees for loss function provided
3. Generalization Bounds: Lacks theoretical bounds on generalization ability

Impact Assessment

Academic Impact

1. Pioneering Work: Has pioneering significance in relation extraction debiasing field
2. Benchmark Value: DREB is expected to become standard evaluation benchmark in the field
3. Method Inspiration: Provides new insights for subsequent debiasing research

Practical Value

1. Industrial Application: Important for improving practical deployment effectiveness of relation extraction systems
2. Fairness Improvement: Helps reduce bias in NLP systems
3. Reproducibility: Authors commit to releasing code and data

Applicable Scenarios

1. Relation Extraction System Evaluation: Provides more reliable evaluation for relation extraction models
2. Debiasing Method Development: Provides testing platform for developing new debiasing methods
3. Fair AI Research: Provides concrete cases and tools for fair AI research

References

The paper cites important works in relation extraction and debiasing fields, including:

• TACRED series datasets (Zhang et al., 2017; Alt et al., 2020; Stoica et al., 2021)
• Entity bias related research (Wang et al., 2022, 2023; Peng et al., 2020)
• Debiasing methods (Mahabadi et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2021)
• Foundation models (Yamada et al., 2020; Zhou & Chen, 2022)

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality research paper that accurately identifies and effectively addresses an important problem in relation extraction. Both the DREB benchmark and MixDebias method demonstrate strong innovation and practical value. Despite some limitations, its contributions are significant and expected to advance research in relation extraction debiasing.