Do Lexical and Contextual Coreference Resolution Systems Degrade Differently under Mention Noise? An Empirical Study on Scientific Software Mentions

Atilla Kaan Alkan, Felix Grezes, Jennifer Lynn Bartlett, Anna Kelbert, Kelly Lockhart, Alberto Accomazzi · Apr 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

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

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

We present our participation in the SOMD 2026 shared task on cross-document software mention coreference resolution, where our systems ranked second across all three subtasks. We compare two fine-tuning-free approaches: Fuzzy Matching (FM), a lexical string-similarity method, and Context Aware Representations (CAR), which combines mention-level and document-level embeddings. Both achieve competitive performance across all subtasks (CoNLL F1 of 0.94-0.96), with CAR consistently outperforming FM by 1 point on the official test set, consistent with the high surface regularity of software names, which reduces the need for complex semantic reasoning. A controlled noise-injection study reveals complementary failure modes: as boundary noise increases, CAR loses only 0.07 F1 points from clean to fully corrupted input, compared to 0.20 for FM, whereas under mention substitution, FM degrades more gracefully (0.52 vs. 0.63). Our inference-time analysis shows that FM scales superlinearly with corpus size, whereas CAR scales approximately linearly, making CAR the more efficient choice at large scale. These findings suggest that system selection should be informed by both the noise profile of the upstream mention detector and the scale of the target corpus. We release our code to support future work on this underexplored task.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

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.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

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

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

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.