---
date: '2022-11-23T19:50:16'
hypothesis-meta:
  created: '2022-11-23T19:50:16.484020+00:00'
  document:
    title:
    - 2210.07188.pdf
  flagged: false
  group: __world__
  hidden: false
  id: DXdcFmtoEe2_uNemAZII7w
  links:
    html: https://hypothes.is/a/DXdcFmtoEe2_uNemAZII7w
    incontext: https://hyp.is/DXdcFmtoEe2_uNemAZII7w/arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
    json: https://hypothes.is/api/annotations/DXdcFmtoEe2_uNemAZII7w
  permissions:
    admin:
    - acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
    delete:
    - acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
    read:
    - group:__world__
    update:
    - acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
  tags:
  - coreference
  - NLProc
  - data-annotation
  target:
  - selector:
    - end: 3539
      start: 3191
      type: TextPositionSelector
    - exact: owever, these datasets vary widelyin their definitions of coreference
        (expressed viaannotation guidelines), resulting in inconsistent an-notations
        both within and across domains and lan-guages. For instance, as shown in Figure
        1, whileARRAU (Uryupina et al., 2019) treats generic pro-nouns as non-referring,
        OntoNotes chooses not tomark them at all
      prefix: "larly for \u201Cwe\u201D.et al., 2016a). H"
      suffix: .It is thus unclear which guidel
      type: TextQuoteSelector
    source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
  text: One of the big issues is that different co-reference datasets have significant
    differences in annotation guidelines even within the coreference family of tasks
    - I found this quite shocking as one might expect coreference to be fairly well
    defined as a task.
  updated: '2022-11-23T19:54:31.023210+00:00'
  uri: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
  user: acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
  user_info:
    display_name: James Ravenscroft
in-reply-to: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
tags:
- coreference
- NLProc
- data-annotation
- hypothesis
type: annotation
url: /annotation/2022/11/23/1669233016

---



 <blockquote>owever, these datasets vary widelyin their definitions of coreference (expressed viaannotation guidelines), resulting in inconsistent an-notations both within and across domains and lan-guages. For instance, as shown in Figure 1, whileARRAU (Uryupina et al., 2019) treats generic pro-nouns as non-referring, OntoNotes chooses not tomark them at all</blockquote>One of the big issues is that different co-reference datasets have significant differences in annotation guidelines even within the coreference family of tasks - I found this quite shocking as one might expect coreference to be fairly well defined as a task.