Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:55:19.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Named-entity recognition in Turkish legal texts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2022

Can Çetindağ ,
Berkay Yazıcıoğlu  and
Aykut Koç
Can Çetindağ
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey National Magnetic Resonance Research Center (UMRAM), Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey
Berkay Yazıcıoğlu
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey National Magnetic Resonance Research Center (UMRAM), Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey
Aykut Koç*
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey National Magnetic Resonance Research Center (UMRAM), Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: aykut.koc@bilkent.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Natural language processing (NLP) technologies and applications in legal text processing are gaining momentum. Being one of the most prominent tasks in NLP, named-entity recognition (NER) can substantiate a great convenience for NLP in law due to the variety of named entities in the legal domain and their accentuated importance in legal documents. However, domain-specific NER models in the legal domain are not well studied. We present a NER model for Turkish legal texts with a custom-made corpus as well as several NER architectures based on conditional random fields and bidirectional long-short-term memories (BiLSTMs) to address the task. We also study several combinations of different word embeddings consisting of GloVe, Morph2Vec, and neural network-based character feature extraction techniques either with BiLSTM or convolutional neural networks. We report 92.27% F1 score with a hybrid word representation of GloVe and Morph2Vec with character-level features extracted with BiLSTM. Being an agglutinative language, the morphological structure of Turkish is also considered. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first legal domain-specific NER study in Turkish and also the first study for an agglutinative language in the legal domain. Thus, our work can also have implications beyond the Turkish language.

Keywords

NLP in lawNERTurkish NERComputational lawNamed-entity recognition
Type
Article
Information
Natural Language Engineering , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , May 2023 , pp. 615 - 642
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akdemir, A. (2018). Named Entity Recognition in Turkish Using Deep Learning Methods and Joint Learning. PhD Thesis, Bogaziçi University.Google Scholar
Akkaya, E.K. and Can, B. (2021). Transfer learning for Turkish named entity recognition on noisy text. Natural Language Engineering 27(1), 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., PreoŢiuc-Pietro, D. and Lampos, V. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science 2, e93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aleven, V. (2003). Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: A computational model and an intelligent learning environment. Artificial Intelligence 150, 183–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, K.D. and Brüninghaus, S. (2009). Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17(2), 125–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, N.X., Minh, N.L., Oanh, T.T. and Shimazu, A. (2013). A two-phase framework for learning logical structures of paragraphs in legal articles. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing 12(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bench-Capon, T., Araszkiewicz, A.M., Ashley, A.K., Atkinson, K., Bex, F., Borges, F., Bourcier, D., Bourgine, P., Conrad, J.G., Francesconi, E., Gordon, T.F., Governatori, G., Leidner, J.L., Lewis, D.D., Loui, R.P., McCarty, L.T., Prakken, H., Schilder, F., Schweighofer, E., Thompson, P., Tyrrell, A., Verheij, B., Walton, D.N. and Wyner, A.Z. (2012). A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20, 215–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borthwick, A. and Grishman, R. (1999). A Maximum Entropy Approach to Named Entity Recognition. PhD Thesis, Citeseer.Google Scholar
Branting, K.L., Yeh, A., Weiss, B., Merkhofer, E. and Brown, B. (2018). Inducing predictive models for decision support in administrative adjudication. In Pagallo U., Palmirani,M., Casanovas P., Sartor G. and Villata, S. (eds), AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. Springer International Publishing, pp. 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, B.G. and Headrick, T.E. (1970). Some speculation about artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Stanford Law Review 23, 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardellino, C., Teruel, M., Alemany, L.A. and Villata, S. (2017). A low-cost, high-coverage legal named entity recognizer, classifier and linker. In Proceedings of the 16th Edition of the International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law, pp. 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casanovas, P., Pagallo, U., Palmirani, M. and Sartor, G. (eds) (2014). AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems - AICOL 2013 International Workshops, AICOL-IV@IVR, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, July 21–27, 2013 and AICOL-V@SINTELNET-JURIX, Bologna, Italy, December 11, 2013, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalkidis, I., Androutsopoulos, I. and Michos, A. (2017). Extracting contract elements. In Proceedings of the 16th Edition of the International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law, pp. 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalkidis, I., Fergadiotis, E., Malakasiotis, P., Aletras, N. and Androutsopoulos, I. (2019a). Extreme multi-label legal text classification: A case study in EU legislation. In Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2019, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalkidis, I., Fergadiotis, E., Malakasiotis, P. and Androutsopoulos, I. (2019b). Large-scale multi-label text classification on EU legislation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 6314–6322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalkidis, I., Jana, A., Hartung, D., Bommarito, M.J., Androutsopoulos, I., Katz, D.M. and Aletras, N. (2021). LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in English. Available at SSRN 3936759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalkidis, I. and Kampas, D. (2019). Deep learning in law: Early adaptation and legal word embeddings trained on large corpora. Artificial Intelligence and Law 27(2), 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, J.P. and Nichols, E. (2016). Named entity recognition with bidirectional LSTM-CNNs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu, K. and Kuksa, P. (2011). Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12(ARTICLE), 2493–2537.Google Scholar
Dale, R. (2019). Law and word order: NLP in legal tech. Natural Language Engineering 25, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalkılıç, F.E., Gelişli, S. and Diri, B. (2010). Named entity recognition from Turkish texts. In 2010 IEEE 18th Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference. IEEE, pp. 918–920.Google Scholar
Demir, H. and Özgür, A. (2014). Improving named entity recognition for morphologically rich languages using word embeddings. In 2014 13th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications. IEEE, pp. 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dozier, C., Kondadadi, R., Light, M., Vachher, A., Veeramachaneni, S. and Wudali, R. (2010). Named entity recognition and resolution in legal text. In Semantic Processing of Legal Texts: Where the Language of Law Meets the Law of Language. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elnaggar, A., Otto, R. and Matthes, F. (2018). Deep learning for named-entity linking with transfer learning for legal documents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing Conference, pp. 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eryiğit, G. (2014). Itu turkish nlp web service. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R., Piwek, P., Cahill, L. and Tipper, N. (2008). Natural language processing in CLIME, a multilingual legal advisory system. Natural Language Engineering 14(1), 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, J.R., Grenager, T. and Manning, C.D. (2005). Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by gibbs sampling. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05), pp. 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, J.R. and Manning, C.D. (2009). Joint parsing and named entity recognition. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francesconi, E., Montemagni, S., Peters, W. and Tiscornia, D. (eds) (2010). Semantic Processing of Legal Texts: Where the Language of Law Meets the Law of Language . Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6036. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Freitag, D. and McCallum, A. (1999). Information extraction with HMMs and shrinkage. In Proceedings of the AAAI-99 Workshop on Machine Learning for Information Extraction. Orlando, Florida, pp. 31–36.Google Scholar
Galgani, F., Compton, P. and Hoffmann, A. (2012). Combining different summarization techniques for legal text. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Innovative Hybrid Approaches to the Processing of Textual Data, HYBRID’12, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 115–123.Google Scholar
Graves, A. and Schmidhuber, J. (2005). Framewise phoneme classification with bidirectional LSTM networks. In Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005, vol. 4. IEEE, pp. 2047–2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grishman, R. and Sundheim, B. (1995). Design of the MUC-6 evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Message Understanding. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güngör, O., Güngör, T. and Üsküdarli, S. (2019). The effect of morphology in named entity recognition with sequence tagging. Natural Language Engineering 25(1), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakkani-Tür, D.Z., Oflazer, K. and Tür, G. (2002). Statistical morphological disambiguation for agglutinative languages. Computers and the Humanities 36(4), 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerton, J. (2003). Named entity recognition with long short-term memory. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003 - Volume 4, CONLL’03, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation 9(8), 1735–1780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Z., Xu, W. and Yu, K. (2015). Bidirectional LSTM-CRF models for sequence tagging. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.01991.Google Scholar
Ikram, A.Y. and Chakir, L. (2019). Arabic text classification in the legal domain. In 2019 Third International Conference on Intelligent Computing in Data Sciences (ICDS). IEEE, pp. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P., Al-Kofahi, K., Tyrrell, A. and Vachher, A. (2003). Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artificial Intelligence 150, 239–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanapala, A., Pal, S. and Pamula, R. (2019). Text summarization from legal documents: A survey. Artificial Intelligence Review 51, 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, D.M., Bommarito, M.J. and Blackman, J. (2017). A general approach for predicting the behavior of the supreme court of the United States. PloS One 12(4), e0174698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, M.-Y., Xu, Y. and Goebel, R. (2017). Applying a convolutional neural network to legal question answering. In Otake M., Kurahashi S., Ota Y., Satoh K. and Bekki D. (eds), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Springer International Publishing, pp. 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowsrihawat, K., Vateekul, P. and Boonkwan, P. (2018). Predicting judicial decisions of criminal cases from Thai Supreme Court using bi-directional GRU with attention mechanism. In 2018 5th Asian Conference on Defense Technology (ACDT), pp. 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, V. and Manning, C.D. (2006). An effective two-stage model for exploiting non-local dependencies in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-44, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1121–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küçük, D. and Steinberger, R. (2014). Experiments to improve named entity recognition on Turkish tweets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.8668.Google Scholar
Küçük, D. and Yazıcı, A. (2009). Named entity recognition experiments on Turkish texts. In Andreasen T., Yager R.R., Bulskov H., Christiansen H. and Larsen H.L. (eds), Flexible Query Answering Systems, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer, pp. 524–535.Google Scholar
Küçük, D. and Yazıcı, A. (2012). A hybrid named entity recognizer for Turkish. Expert Systems with Applications 39(3), 2733–2742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuru, O., Can, O.A. and Yuret, D. (2016). CharNER: Character-level named entity recognition. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pp. 911–921.Google Scholar
Lafferty, J.D., McCallum, A. and Pereira, F.C.N. (2001). Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’01, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp. 282–289.Google Scholar
Lample, G., Ballesteros, M., Subramanian, S., Kawakami, K. and Dyer, C. (2016). Neural architectures for named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01360.Google Scholar
Leek, T.R. (1997). Information Extraction using Hidden Markov Models. Master’s Thesis, Citeseer.Google Scholar
Leitner, E., Rehm, G. and Moreno-Schneider, J. (2019). Fine-grained named entity recognition in legal documents. In International Conference on Semantic Systems. Springer, pp. 272–287.Google Scholar
Li, J., Sun, A., Han, J. and Li, C. (2022). A survey on deep learning for named entity recognition. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34(1), 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, C., Tan, I. and Selvaretnam, B. (2019). Domain-general versus domain-specific named entity recognition: A case study using TEXT. In Multi-disciplinary Trends in Artificial Intelligence, 13th International Conference, MIWAI 2019, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, S., Tu, C., Liu, Z. and Sun, M. (2019). Automatic judgment prediction via legal reading comprehension. In China National Conference on Chinese Computational Linguistics. Springer, pp. 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luz de Araujo, P.H., de Campos, T.E., de Oliveira, R.R.R., Stauffer, M., Couto, S. and Bermejo, P. (2018). LeNER-Br: A dataset for named entity recognition in Brazilian legal text. In International Conference on the Computational Processing of Portuguese (PROPOR), Lecture Notes on Computer Science (LNCS), Canela, RS, Brazil. Springer, pp. 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, X. and Hovy, E. (2016). End-to-end sequence labeling via bi-directional LSTM-CNNs-CRF. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01354.Google Scholar
Manor, L. and Junyi, J.L. (2019). Plain English summarization of contracts. In Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2019, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Martin, A.D., Quinn, K.M., Ruger, T.W. and Kim, P.T. (2004). Competing approaches to predicting supreme court decision making. Perspectives on Politics 2(4), 761–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCallum, A., Freitag, D. and Pereira, F.C.N. (2000). Maximum entropy markov models for information extraction and segmentation. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’00, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 591–598.Google Scholar
Medvedeva, M., Vols, M. and Wieling, M. (2020). Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Artificial Intelligence and Law 28(2), 237–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. and Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.Google Scholar
Morimoto, A., Kubo, D., Sato, M., Shindo, H. and Matsumoto, Y. (2017). Legal question answering system using neural attention. In Satoh K., Kim M., Kano Y., Goebel R. and Oliveira T. (eds), 4th Competition on Legal Information Extraction and Entailment (COLIEE 2017), Held in Conjunction with the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2017) in King’s College London, UK. EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 47. EasyChair, pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
Mumcuoğlu, E., Öztürk, C.E., Ozaktas, H.M. and Koç, A. (2021). Natural language processing in law: Prediction of outcomes in the higher courts of Turkey. Information Processing & Management 58(5), 102684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanda, R., Adebayo, K.J., Di Caro, L., Boella, G. and Robaldo, L. (2017). Legal information retrieval using topic clustering and neural networks. In COLIEE@ ICAIL, pp. 68–78.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T.-S., Nguyen, L.-M., Tojo, S., Satoh, K. and Shimazu, A. (2018). Recurrent neural network-based models for recognizing requisite and effectuation parts in legal texts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 26(2), 169–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oflazer, K. (1994). Two-level description of Turkish morphology. Literary and Linguistic Computing 9(2), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oflazer, K. and Saraçlar, M. (eds) (2018). Turkish Natural Language Processing, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, C. and Beel, J. (2019). Predicting the outcome of judicial decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights. In Proceedings of the 27th AIAI Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Pennington, J., Socher, R. and Manning, C.D. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 1532–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, M.E., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K. and Zettlemoyer, L. (2018). Deep contextualized word representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05365.Google Scholar
Ruger, T.W., Kim, P.T., Martin, A.D. and Quinn, K.M. (2004). The supreme court forecasting project: Legal and political science appr oaches to predicting supreme court decisionmaking. Columbia Law Review, 104(4), 1150–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sang, E.F. and De Meulder, F. (2003). Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. arXiv preprint cs/0306050.Google Scholar
Sangeetha, D., Kavyashri, R., Swetha, S. and Vignesh, S. (2017). Information retrieval system for laws. In 2016 Eighth International Conference on Advanced Computing (ICoAC). IEEE, pp. 212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Şeker, G.A. and Eryiğit, G. (2012). Initial explorations on using CRFs for Turkish named entity recognition. In Proceedings of COLING 2012, pp. 2459–2474.Google Scholar
Sevim, N., Şahinuç, F. and Koç, A. (2022). Gender bias in legal corpora and debiasing it. Natural Language Engineering, 1–34.Google Scholar
Shulayeva, O., Siddharthan, A. and Wyner, A. (2017). Recognizing cited facts and principles in legal judgements. Artificial Intelligence and Law 25(1), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, D., Broderick, D. and Herr, J. (2019). The extent of repetition in contract language. In Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2019, pp. 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleimi, A., Sannier, N., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L. and Dann, J. (2018). Automated extraction of semantic legal metadata using natural language processing. In 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, pp. 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soh, J., Lin, H.K. and Chai, I.E. (2019). Legal area classification: A comparative study of text classifiers on Singapore Supreme Court Judgments. In Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2019, pp. 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straková, J., Straka, M. and Hajič, J. (2019). Neural architectures for nested NER through linearization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06926.Google Scholar
Şulea, O., Zampieri, M., Malmasi, S., Vela, M., Dinu, L.P. and van Genabith, J. (2017a). Exploring the use of text classification in the legal domain. In Ashley K.D., Atkinson K., Branting L.K., Francesconi, E., Grabmair, M., Lauritsen M., Walker V.R. and Wyner A.Z. (eds), Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Automated Semantic Analysis of Information in Legal Texts Co-located with the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2017), London, UK, June 16, 2017. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2143. CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Şulea, O.-M., Zampieri, M., Vela, M. and van Genabith, J. (2017b). Predicting the law area and decisions of French Supreme Court cases. In Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP 2017, Varna, Bulgaria, pp. 716–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tkachenko, M. and Simanovsky, A. (2012). Named entity recognition: Exploring features. In KONVENS, pp. 118–127.Google Scholar
Tür, G., Hakkani-Tür, D. and Oflazer, K. (2003). A statistical information extraction system for turkish. Natural Language Engineering 9(2), 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Üstün, A., Kurfal, M. and Can, B. (2018). Characters or morphemes: How to represent words? In Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pp. 144–153.Google Scholar
Vardhan, H., Surana, N. and Tripathy, B. (2020). Named-entity recognition for legal documents. In International Conference on Advanced Machine Learning Technologies and Applications. Springer, pp. 469–479.Google Scholar
Virtucio, M.B., Aborot, J., Abonita, J.K., Aviñante, R., Copino, R.J., Neverida, M., Osiana, V., Peramo, E., Syjuco, J. and Tan, G.B. (2018). Predicting decisions of the Philippine supreme court using natural language processing and machine learning. In 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), vol. 2, pp. 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., Jiang, Y., Bach, N., Wang, T., Huang, Z., Huang, F. and Tu, K. (2020). Automated Concatenation of Embeddings for Structured Prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05006.Google Scholar
Yadav, V. and Bethard, S. (2019). A survey on recent advances in named entity recognition from deep learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.11470.Google Scholar
Yamada, I., Asai, A., Shindo, H., Takeda, H. and Matsumoto, Y. (2020). Luke: Deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01057.Google Scholar
Yeniterzi, R. (2011). Exploiting morphology in Turkish named entity recognition system. In Proceedings of the ACL 2011 Student Session, pp. 105–110.Google Scholar
Yeniterzi, R., Tür, G. and Oflazer, K. (2018). Turkish named-entity recognition. In Turkish Natural Language Processing. Springer, pp. 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar