The focus of this paper is to address the knowledge acquisition bottleneck for Named Entity Recognition (NER) of mutations, by analysing different approaches to build manually-annotated data. We address first the impact of using a single annotator vs two annotators, in order to measure whether multiple annotators are required. Once we evaluate the performance loss when using a single annotator, we apply different methods to sample the training data for second annotation, aiming at improving the quality of the dataset without requiring a full pass. We use held-out double-annotated data to build two scenarios with different types of rankings: similarity-based and confidence based. We evaluate both approaches on: (i) their ability to identify training instances that are erroneous (cases where single-annotator labels differ from double-annotation after discussion), and (ii) on Mutation NER performance for state-of-the-art classifiers after integrating the fixes at different thresholds.
@article{arxiv.2101.07450,
title = {Single versus Multiple Annotation for Named Entity Recognition of Mutations},
author = {David Martinez Iraola and Antonio Jimeno Yepes},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.07450},
year = {2021}
}