Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

HCRE: LLM-based Hierarchical Classification for Cross-Document Relation Extraction with a Prediction-then-Verification Strategy

Guoqi Ma, Liang Zhang, Hongyao Tu, Hao Fu +5 more

Published

Apr 9, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Apr 20, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Cross-document relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between the head and tail entities located in different documents. Existing approaches typically adopt the paradigm of ``\textit{Small Language Model (SLM) + Classifier}''. However, the limited language understanding ability of SLMs hinders further improvement of their performance. In this paper, we conduct a preliminary study to explore the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in cross-document RE. Despite their extensive parameters, our findings indicate that LLMs do not consistently surpass existing SLMs. Further analysis suggests that the underperformance is largely attributed to the challenges posed by the numerous predefined relations. To overcome this issue, we propose an LLM-based \underline{H}ierarchical \underline{C}lassification model for cross-document \underline{RE} (HCRE), which consists of two core components: 1) an LLM for relation prediction and 2) a \textit{hierarchical relation tree} derived from the predefined relation set. This tree enables the LLM to perform hierarchical classification, where the target relation is inferred level by level. Since the number of child nodes is much smaller than the size of the entire predefined relation set, the hierarchical relation tree significantly reduces the number of relation options that LLM needs to consider during inference. However, hierarchical classification introduces the risk of error propagation across levels. To mitigate this, we propose a \textit{prediction-then-verification} inference strategy that improves prediction reliability through multi-view verification at each level. Extensive experiments show that HCRE outperforms existing baselines, validating its effectiveness.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Cross-document relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between the head and tail entities located in different documents."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Cross-document relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between the head and tail entities located in different documents."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Cross-document relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between the head and tail entities located in different documents."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Cross-document relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between the head and tail entities located in different documents."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Cross-document relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between the head and tail entities located in different documents."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Cross-document relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between the head and tail entities located in different documents.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Cross-document relation extraction (RE) aims to identify relations between the head and tail entities located in different documents.
  • Existing approaches typically adopt the paradigm of ``\textit{Small Language Model (SLM) + Classifier}''.
  • However, the limited language understanding ability of SLMs hinders further improvement of their performance.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • To overcome this issue, we propose an LLM-based Hierarchical Classification model for cross-document RE (HCRE), which consists of two core components: 1) an LLM for relation prediction and 2) a hierarchical relation tree derived from the…
  • To mitigate this, we propose a prediction-then-verification inference strategy that improves prediction reliability through multi-view verification at each level.

Why it matters for eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.