Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Overview of HIPE-2026: Person-Place Relation Extraction from Multilingual Historical Texts

Juri Opitz, Maud Ehrmann, Corina Raclé, Andrianos Michail, Matteo Romanello, Simon Clematide · Jun 24, 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

Was this person ever at that place, and if so, when? Answering such questions from noisy, multilingual historical documents is the central challenge of HIPE-2026, the third edition of the HIPE evaluation series. Moving from named entity recognition and linking (HIPE-2020, HIPE-2022) to reasoning about relationships between entities, HIPE-2026 targets two temporally grounded relation types: $at$, indicating that a person was present at a location at some point prior to a document's publication date, and $isAt$, indicating presence contemporaneous with that date. This paper presents the results of the evaluation campaign, which confronted 17 participating teams with the challenges of historical language variation, OCR noise, and indirect contextual cues across three languages: French, German, and English. The datasets include historical newspaper text from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as well as a surprise-domain generalization set drawn from early modern French literary texts. A distinctive feature of HIPE-2026 is its three-fold evaluation framework, which assesses predictive accuracy, computational efficiency, and cross-domain generalization, reflecting the practical demands of large-scale historical document processing in the cultural heritage domain. Across more than 40 submitted runs, results reveal a wide range of strategies, from state-of-the-art large language models to lightweight task-specific classifiers, and highlight the trade-offs between accuracy, efficiency, and robustness inherent to historical relation extraction at corpus scale. System descriptions, datasets, and findings are presented and discussed, offering a detailed picture of the current state of temporally grounded relation extraction for historical documents.

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.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Was this person ever at that place, and if so, when?"

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Was this person ever at that place, and if so, when?"

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Was this person ever at that place, and if so, when?"

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Was this person ever at that place, and if so, when?"

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"A distinctive feature of HIPE-2026 is its three-fold evaluation framework, which assesses predictive accuracy, computational efficiency, and cross-domain generalization, reflecting the practical demands of large-scale historical document processing in the cultural heritage domain."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Multilingual

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

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

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Was this person ever at that place, and if so, when?

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

Key Takeaways

  • Was this person ever at that place, and if so, when?
  • Answering such questions from noisy, multilingual historical documents is the central challenge of HIPE-2026, the third edition of the HIPE evaluation series.
  • Moving from named entity recognition and linking (HIPE-2020, HIPE-2022) to reasoning about relationships between entities, HIPE-2026 targets two temporally grounded relation types: $at$, indicating that a person was present at a location at some point prior to a document's publication date, and $isAt$, indicating presence contemporaneous with that date.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • 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

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Answering such questions from noisy, multilingual historical documents is the central challenge of HIPE-2026, the third edition of the HIPE evaluation series.
  • This paper presents the results of the evaluation campaign, which confronted 17 participating teams with the challenges of historical language variation, OCR noise, and indirect contextual cues across three languages: French, German, and…
  • A distinctive feature of HIPE-2026 is its three-fold evaluation framework, which assesses predictive accuracy, computational efficiency, and cross-domain generalization, reflecting the practical demands of large-scale historical document…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Answering such questions from noisy, multilingual historical documents is the central challenge of HIPE-2026, the third edition of the HIPE evaluation series.
  • A distinctive feature of HIPE-2026 is its three-fold evaluation framework, which assesses predictive accuracy, computational efficiency, and cross-domain generalization, reflecting the practical demands of large-scale historical document…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.