Piecing Together Cross-Document Coreference Resolution Datasets: Systematic Dataset Analysis and Unification

Anastasia Zhukova, Terry Ruas, Jan Philip Wahle, Bela Gipp · Feb 28, 2026 · Citations: 0

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

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

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Research in CDCR remains fragmented due to heterogeneous dataset formats, varying annotation standards, and the predominance of the CDCR definition as the event coreference resolution (ECR). To address these challenges, we introduce uCDCR, a unified dataset that consolidates diverse publicly available English CDCR corpora across various domains into a consistent format, which we analyze with standardized metrics and evaluation protocols. uCDCR incorporates both entity and event coreference, corrects known inconsistencies, and enriches datasets with missing attributes to facilitate reproducible research. We establish a cohesive framework for fair, interpretable, and cross-dataset analysis in CDCR and compare the datasets on their lexical properties, e.g., lexical composition of the annotated mentions, lexical diversity and ambiguity metrics, discuss the annotation rules and principles that lead to high lexical diversity, and examine how these metrics influence performance on the same-head-lemma baseline. Our dataset analysis shows that ECB+, the state-of-the-art benchmark for CDCR, has one of the lowest lexical diversities, and its CDCR complexity, measured by the same-head-lemma baseline, lies in the middle among all uCDCR datasets. Moreover, comparing document and mention distributions between ECB+ and uCDCR shows that using all uCDCR datasets for model training and evaluation will improve the generalizability of CDCR models. Finally, the almost identical performance on the same-head-lemma baseline, separately applied to events and entities, shows that resolving both types is a complex task and should not be steered toward ECR alone. The uCDCR dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/AnZhu/uCDCR, and the code for parsing, analyzing, and scoring the dataset is available at https://github.com/anastasia-zhukova/uCDCR.

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.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

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

Background context only.

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

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

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.