Probes a model's ability to perform fine-grained information extraction from scholarly NLP papers. It specifically tests the identification of contribution sentences, the extraction of scientific terms and entities, and the structuring of these elements into RDF-style triples organized under 12 predefined information units. Use when the user wants to benchmark on NLPContributionGraph, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F1.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ncg Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-ncg-eval)
---
name: ncg-eval
description: Probes a model's ability to perform fine-grained information extraction from scholarly NLP papers. It specifically tests the identification of contribution sentences, the extraction of scientific terms and entities, and the structuring of these elements into RDF-style triples organized under 12 predefined information units. Use when the user wants to benchmark on NLPContributionGraph, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2106.07385
bibtex_key: dsouza2021ncg
confidence: high
---
# ncg-eval
> SemEval-2021 Task 11: NLPContributionGraph -- Structuring Scholarly NLP Contributions for a Research Knowledge Graph — D'Souza et al. (2021) (arXiv:2106.07385, 2021)
## What this evaluates
Probes a model's ability to perform fine-grained information extraction from scholarly NLP papers. It specifically tests the identification of contribution sentences, the extraction of scientific terms and entities, and the structuring of these elements into RDF-style triples organized under 12 predefined information units.
## Datasets
- **NLPContributionGraph** — total ?; splits: test (-1); repo https://github.com/sshailabh/SemEval-2021-Task-11
## Metrics
- `F1` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Standard F1 score (harmonic mean of precision and recall) computed at sentence, entity, and triple levels, with an overall score aggregating performance across the end-to-end pipeline.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Plaintext scholarly article $A$ (and optionally gold contribution sentences $C_{sent}$ or entities $E$ depending on the evaluation phase).
**Output**: A set of contribution sentences $C_{sent}$, a set of entities $E$ (scientific terms and predicates), and a set of triples $T$ in (subject, predicate, object) format organized under 12 information units.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_f1(pred_set, gold_set):
tp = len(pred_set & gold_set)
prec = tp / len(pred_set) if pred_set else 0
rec = tp / len(gold_set) if gold_set else 0
return 2 * prec * rec / (prec + rec) if (prec + rec) > 0 else 0
# Overall F1 aggregates sentence, entity, and triple F1s across the pipeline
```
## Common pitfalls
- Confusing the three evaluation phases (end-to-end vs. constrained entity/triple extraction).
- Failing to organize extracted triples under the correct 12 Information Units (IUs), which is required for KG building.
- Triple-level extraction is significantly harder than sentence-level, leading to low F1 scores despite decent sentence extraction.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Despite strong inter-annotator agreement at sentence level (F1=67.92%), triple-level performance remains low (F1=22.28%), highlighting the difficulty of automated semantic parsing and entity relation extraction in unstructured research narratives.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{dsouza2021ncg,
title={SemEval-2021 Task 11: NLPContributionGraph -- Structuring Scholarly NLP Contributions for a Research Knowledge Graph},
author={D'Souza et al. (2021)},
year={2021},
note={arXiv:2106.07385}
}
```
- arXiv: 2106.07385