Entity linking is the task of associating linguistic expressions with entries in a knowledge base that represent real-world entities and concepts. Language resources for this task have primarily been developed for English, and the resources available for evaluating Japanese systems remain limited. In this study, we develop a corpus design policy for the entity linking task and construct an annotated corpus for training and evaluating Japanese entity linking systems, with rich coverage of linguistic expressions referring to entities that are specific to Japan. Evaluation of inter-annotator agreement confirms the high consistency of the annotations in the corpus, and a preliminary experiment on entity disambiguation based on string matching suggests that the corpus contains a substantial number of non-trivial cases, supporting its potential usefulness as an evaluation benchmark.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Lang.
Data source
KB
#Mentions
Manual
CADEL (Ours)
ja
Web
Wikidata
8,082
✓
jawikify Jargalsaikhan et al. (2016)
ja
News
Wikipedia
25,675
✓
JWC Murawaki and Mori (2016)
ja
Blog, Twitter, etc.
Wikipedia
8,057
✓
Shinra 2023 dataset Sekine et al. (2023)
ja
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
59,429
△
WikiANN Pan et al. (2017)
multi
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
1.9M
✗
Mewsli-9 Botha et al. (2020)
multi
Wikinews
Wikidata
34,463
✗
Table 1: Characteristics of EL datasets with Japanese text. For multilingual (multi) datasets, we report the number of mentions only for the Japanese portion. In the Manual Column, “ ✓ ”, “ △ ”, and “ ✗ ” indicate full, partial, and no manual correction, respectively.
Mention
Entry
(R1) Base form
(R2) POS
(R3) Overlap
(R4) Reference
Link type
PROPN: Full name
✓
NP: Singular
✓
None
✓
Direct
✓
Exact
✓
PROPN: Short name
✓
NP: Plural
✓
Maximal
✓
Anaphoric
△
Related
✓
PROPN: Extended name
✓
Adjective
Intermediate
Metaphoric
–
PROPN: Alias
✓
Verb
Minimal
Metonymic
✓
–
Numeric/Temporal
Adverb
–
Related
–
Table 2: Overview of CADEL’s design policy, which extends Rosales-Méndez et al. (2019) ’s taxonomy (R1–R4). The subcategory “Related” under R4 follows their taxonomy and is distinct from our “Related” entry link type. PROPN and NP indicate proper noun and noun phrase, respectively.
Tag
Type
ENE category
PER
Person
1.1
LIV
Living things
1.3
ORG
Organization
1.4
LOC
Location
1.5
FAC
Facility
1.6
PRO
Product
1.7 (subset)
Table 3: Entity types for CADEL. NOMINAL is used for non-named mentions across entity types.
#Doc
#Article
#Sent
#Mention
#Cluster
85
160
3,852
8,082
4,049
Table 4: Basic statistics of CADEL.
Type
Mention
Exact link (%)
Related link (%)
NAME
6,939
5,058
(72.9)
702
(10.1)
PER
307
217
(70.7)
1
(0.0)
LIV
8
0
(0.0)
0
(0.0)
ORG
1,319
957
(72.6)
156
(11.8)
LOC
2,596
2,228
(85.8)
297
(11.4)
FAC
1,059
670
(63.3)
173
(16.3)
Table 5: The numbers of mentions and link numbers/ratios of Wikidata entries for each type.
Ranking method
AltLabel
Exact link
Related link
R@1
R@10
R@100
R@1
R@10
R@100
Uniform
0.555
0.756
0.762
0.074
0.099
0.100
✓
0.565
0.788
0.795
0.086
0.112
0.113
SmallerID
0.693
0.761
0.762
0.080
0.100
0.100
✓
0.716
0.794
0.795
0.091
0.113
0.113
MoreWikiBLs
0.733
0.761
0.762
0.098
0.100
0.100
Table 6: Disambiguation performance of string matching for named mentions.
#Doc
#Art
#Sent
#Mention
Train
39
74
1,607
2,903
Dev
15
31
636
1,354
Test
31
55
1,609
3,825
Total
85
160
3,852
8,082
Table 7: Official data split of CADEL.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Text type
#Docs
#Articles
Public relations magazines
37
79
White and blue papers
21
48
Press conference/meeting records
7
10
Press releases
6
7
Other web pages
8
9
Other PDF documents
6
7
Appendix
Table 8: The numbers of documents/articles for each text media type.
Org.
Domain
#Docs
#Articles
CAO (Bousai)
bousai.go.jp
4
4
CAO (OGB)
ogb.go.jp
1
2
CAO (NPA)
npa.go.jp
2
5
MIC (FDMA)
fdma.go.jp
1
2
MOJ
moj.go.jp
1
3
MOFA
mofa.go.jp
5
5
Appendix
Table 9: The numbers of documents/articles for each source site domain name.
Publication year
#Docs
#Articles
Unknown
6
7
1998
1
1
2017
1
1
2018
1
1
2019
1
5
2020
3
4
Appendix
Table 10: The numbers of documents/articles for each publication year.
PART
CONT
SHARE
PRD_I
DIAC
OTH
VAGUE
497
36
43
20
129
125
43
Appendix
Table 11: Distribution of related link type tags assigned to mentions.
Size
1
2
3
4
5
≥ 6
Clster
2,531
682
336
197
89
214
DM
1.00
1.32
1.57
1.78
2.01
2.73
DNM
0.95
1.13
1.24
1.38
1.42
1.72
Appendix
Table 12: The number of coreference clusters and the average number of mentions (DM: distinct mentions; DNM: distinct named mentions) inside clusters for each size. The DM and DNM values for all clusters are 1.25 and 1.07, respectively.
Mention
A vs. B
A vs. C
Span
+Type
Span
+Type
All
0.890
0.788
0.867
0.802
Named
0.884
0.825
0.915
0.846
Non-named
0.547
0.547
0.522
0.522
Appendix
Table 13: Inter-annotator agreement (F1 score) for mention annotation. “Span” indicates exact span-only match, and “+Type” indicates exact match for both span and entity type.
Mention
A vs. B
(A or B) vs. LAI
LEA
CoNLL
LEA
CoNLL
All
0.906
0.939
0.470
0.475
Named
0.909
0.926
0.512
0.496
Non-named
0.603
0.635
0.286
0.395
Mention
A vs. C
(A or C) vs. LAI
LEA
CoNLL
LEA
CoNLL
Appendix
Table 14: Inter-annotator agreement for coreference annotation.
Type
In/OOKB
A vs. B
A vs. C
F1
κ
F1
κ
Exact
All
0.924
0.919
0.830
0.817
InKB
0.930
–
0.802
–
OOKB
0.898
–
0.917
–
Exact
All
0.870
0.866
0.769
0.759
&
InKB
0.881
–
0.767
–
Appendix
Table 15: Inter-annotator agreement for link annotation.
Entity linking is a key component of many downstream NLP systems, yet existing approaches are often tied to the specific target knowledge bases and domains, limiting their real world application. In this paper, we extend LELA, a modular and domain-agnostic LLM-based entity disambiguation method, into a practical Python library that integrates zero-shot Named Entity Recognition (NER) -thereby providing a complete end-toend pipeline for entity-linking in real-world usage. We provide experimental results validating LELA's performance and robustness across diverse entity linking settings. In our demo, users can play with the system on their own input texts.
Samy Haffoudhi, Nikola Dobričić, Fabian Suchanek +1
IP Paris, LTCI, DIG · T´el´ecom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris · IP Paris +1
Multimodal entity linking grounds entity mentions in text and images to knowledge-base entries. These systems degrade on rare entities, but prior work measures rarity primarily through popularity-based metrics such as pageviews. We broaden this view using knowledge-graph structural metrics that capture how well an entity is documented and connected. These metrics identify many rare entities that popularity metrics miss. Across the resulting rare-entity slices, state-of-the-art accuracy drops by 15.4-39.9%, showing that different rarity definitions expose different failure modes. To address these failures, we introduce a simple, training-free framework in which a reasoning-capable vision-language model iteratively searches and reasons over Wikipedia, gathering evidence dynamically. Controlled experiments show that reasoning and retrieval are complementary. Reasoning alone does not significantly improve accuracy on rare entities. Retrieval without reasoning improves rare-entity accuracy but can hurt overall accuracy. Their combination performs best. On MERLIN, a multilingual multimodal entity linking benchmark over five languages (Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Tamil, Vietnamese), our best system improves over the state of the art by 6.9% overall and by up to 23.3% on rare-entity slices. We release MERLIN-Rare, rare-entity test slices for targeted evaluation, with our framework.
Parinthapat Pengpun, Simran Khanuja, Graham Neubig
We present J-tau, the first publicly available Japanese benchmark for evaluating tool-using LLM agents in interactive customer-support scenarios. While tau-bench is widely used to evaluate LLM agents, it is English-centric and cannot evaluate agents in other languages. Existing multilingual extensions offer no public Japanese version and rely primarily on machine translation, leaving locale-specific entities such as addresses and currencies inconsistent with the target region. To enable reliable evaluation in Japanese, we carefully localize tau-bench through machine translation, entity adaptation, and human review. During this process, we also uncover and fix two flaws in the original tau-bench: invalid tasks and a score aggregation error that inflates certain models' results. Experiments show that J-tau yields fewer evaluation errors than a naively machine-translated counterpart and that our fixes resolve both flaws.