Dominican Republic

The principle of independent causal mechanisms (ICM) states that generative processes of real world data consist of independent modules which do not influence or inform each other. While this idea has led to fruitful developments in the field of causal inference, it is not widely-known in the NLP community. In this work, we argue that the causal direction of the data collection process bears nontrivial implications that can explain a number of published NLP findings, such as differences in semi-supervised learning (SSL) and domain adaptation (DA) performance across different settings. We categorize common NLP tasks according to their causal direction and empirically assay the validity of the ICM principle for text data using minimum description length. We conduct an extensive meta-analysis of over 100 published SSL and 30 DA studies, and find that the results are consistent with our expectations based on causal insights. This work presents the first attempt to analyze the ICM principle in NLP, and provides constructive suggestions for future modeling choices.

EMNLP 2021

Causal Direction of Data Collection Matters: Implications of Causal and Anticausal Learning for NLP

EMNLP 2021 is planned to be a hybrid event in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, with both on-site and fully virtual participation possible. The experience for on-site participants would closely approximate a normal pre-COVID *ACL conference, with 5-6 thematically organized parallel sessions and live Q/A and interactive discussion immediately after the talks. Presentations by virtual participants will be equitably interleaved with those of on-site participants, projected on the auditorium screens as if on-site, and also followed immediately by live Q/A and interactive discussion at a time during reasonable waking hours for the virtual presenter. For all participants, on-site and virtual, who are unable to attend a session due to either time-zone issues or because they are participating in another session live, talk recordings and slides will be available online at a minimum after the live presentation (and in many cases before as well), and questions may be submitted in advance on session-specific discussion boards and answered live in session with the usual visual aids if desired.

<iframe style="width:700px;height:400px" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/ceby/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe>

Please Note: The EMNLP registration system is not currently connected to the underline site as we are still in the process of building out EMNLP 2021. You will receive access instructions from underline the week of November 1st. 

Access is given only to EMNLP upon registration, if you have not registered please do so [here](https://2021.emnlp.org/registration).

Registered attendees will receive access the week of November 1st.

EMNLP 2021 is planned to be a hybrid event in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, with both on-site and fully virtual participation possible.

poster

The Uniform Information Density principle states that speakers plan their utterances to reduce fluctuations in the density of the information transmitted. In this paper, we test whether, and within which contextual units this principle holds in task-oriented dialogues. We show that there is evidence supporting the principle in written dialogues where participants play a cooperative reference game as well as in spoken dialogues involving instruction giving and following. Our study underlines the importance of identifying the relevant contextual components, showing that information content increases particularly within topically and referentially related contextual units.

Is Information Density Uniform in Task-Oriented Dialogues?

Homophony's widespread presence in natural languages is a controversial topic. Recent theories of language optimality have tried to justify its prevalence, despite its negative effects on cognitive processing time; e.g., Piantadosi et al. (2012) argued homophony enables the reuse of efficient wordforms and is thus beneficial for languages. This hypothesis has recently been challenged by Trott and Bergen (2020), who posit that good wordforms are more often homophonous simply because they are more phonotactically probable. In this paper, we join in on the debate. We first propose a new information-theoretic quantification of a language's homophony: the sample Rényi entropy. Then, we use this quantification to revisit Trott and Bergen's claims. While their point is theoretically sound, a specific methodological issue in their experiments raises doubts about their results. After addressing this issue, we find no clear pressure either towards or against homophony -- a much more nuanced result than either Piantadosi et al.'s or Trott and Bergen's findings.

On Homophony and Rényi Entropy

I highlight a simple failure mode of state-of- the-art machine reading systems: when contexts do not align with commonly shared beliefs. For example, machine reading systems fail to answer "What did Elizabeth want?" correctly in the context of ’My kingdom for a cough drop, cried Queen Elizabeth.’ Biased by co-occurrence statistics in the training data of pretrained language models, systems predict 'my kingdom', rather than 'a cough drop'. I argue such biases are analogous to human belief biases and present a carefully designed challenge dataset for English machine reading, called AUTO-LOCKE, to quantify such effects. Evaluations of machine reading systems on AUTO-LOCKE show the pervasiveness of be- lief bias in machine reading.

Locke's Holiday: Belief Bias in Machine Reading

Transformer-based sequence-to-sequence architectures, while achieving state-of-the-art results on a large number of NLP tasks, can still suffer from overfitting during training. In practice, this is usually countered either by applying regularization methods (e.g. dropout, L2-regularization) or by providing huge amounts of training data. Additionally, Transformer and other architectures are known to struggle when generating very long sequences. For example, in machine translation, the neural-based systems perform worse on very long sequences when compared to the preceding phrase-based translation approaches (Koehn and Knowles, 2017). We present results which suggest that the issue might also be in the mismatch between the length distributions of the training and validation data combined with the aforementioned tendency of the neural networks to overfit to the training data. We demonstrate on a simple string editing task and a machine translation task that the Transformer model performance drops significantly when facing sequences of length diverging from the length distribution in the training data. Additionally, we show that the observed drop in performance is due to the hypothesis length corresponding to the lengths seen by the model during training rather than the length of the input sequence.

Sequence Length is a Domain: Length-based Overfitting in Transformer Models

Natural languages display a trade-off among different strategies to convey syntactic structure, such as word order or inflection. This trade-off, however, has not appeared in recent simulations of iterated language learning with neural network agents (Chaabouni et al., 2019b). We re-evaluate this result in light of three factors that play an important role in comparable experiments from the Language Evolution field: (i) speaker bias towards efficient messaging, (ii) non systematic input languages, and (iii) learning bottleneck. Our simulations show that neural agents mainly strive to maintain the utterance type distribution observed during learning, instead of developing a more efficient or systematic language.

The Effect of Efficient Messaging and Input Variability on Neural-Agent Iterated Language Learning

Contrastive explanations clarify why an event occurred in contrast to another. They are more inherently intuitive to humans to both produce and comprehend. We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models by modifying the representation to disregard non-contrastive information, and modifying model behavior to only be based on contrastive reasoning. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space that captures only the features that are useful (to the model) to differentiate two potential decisions. We demonstrate the value of contrastive explanations by analyzing two different scenarios, using both high-level abstract concept attribution and low-level input token/span attribution, on two widely used text classification tasks. Specifically, we produce explanations for answering: for which label, and against which alternative label, is some aspect of the input useful? And which aspects of the input are useful for and against particular decisions? Overall, our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.

Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability

Research shows that natural language processing models are generally considered to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks; but recent work has drawn attention to the issue of validating these adversarial inputs against certain criteria (e.g., the preservation of semantics and grammaticality). Enforcing constraints to uphold such criteria may render attacks unsuccessful, raising the question of whether valid attacks are actually feasible. In this work, we investigate this through the lens of human language ability. We report on crowdsourcing studies in which we task humans with iteratively modifying words in an input text, while receiving immediate model feedback, with the aim of causing a sentiment classification model to misclassify the example. Our findings suggest that humans are capable of generating a substantial amount of adversarial examples using semantics-preserving word substitutions. We analyze how human-generated adversarial examples compare to the recently proposed TextFooler, Genetic, BAE and SememePSO attack algorithms on the dimensions naturalness, preservation of sentiment, grammaticality and substitution rate. Our findings suggest that human-generated adversarial examples are not more able than the best algorithms to generate natural-reading, sentiment-preserving examples, though they do so by being much more computationally efficient.

Contrasting Human- and Machine-Generated Word-Level Adversarial Examples for Text Classification

We find that the requirement of model interpretations to be faithful is vague and incomplete. With interpretation by textual highlights as a case-study, we present several failure cases. Borrowing concepts from social science, we identify that the problem is a misalignment between the causal chain of decisions (causal attribution) and the attribution of human behavior to the interpretation (social attribution). We re-formulate faithfulness as an accurate attribution of causality to the model, and introduce the concept of aligned faithfulness: faithful causal chains that are aligned with their expected social behavior. The two steps of causal attribution and social attribution together complete the process of explaining behavior. With this formalization, we characterize various failures of misaligned faithful highlight interpretations, and propose an alternative causal chain to remedy the issues. Finally, we implement highlight explanations of the proposed causal format using contrastive explanations.

Aligning Faithful Interpretations with their Social Attribution

The uniform information density (UID) hypothesis posits a preference among language users for utterances structured such that information is distributed uniformly across a signal. While its implications on language production have been well explored, the hypothesis potentially makes predictions about language comprehension and linguistic acceptability as well. Further, it is unclear how uniformity in a linguistic signal—or lack thereof—should be measured, and over which linguistic unit, e.g., the sentence or language level, this uniformity should hold. Here we investigate these facets of the UID hypothesis using reading time and acceptability data. While our reading time results are generally consistent with previous work, they are also consistent with a weakly super-linear effect of surprisal, which would be compatible with UID’s predictions. For acceptability judgments, we find clearer evidence that non-uniformity in information density is predictive of lower acceptability. We then explore multiple operationalizations of UID, motivated by different interpretations of the original hypothesis, and analyze the scope over which the pressure towards uniformity is exerted. The explanatory power of a subset of the proposed operationalizations suggests that the strongest trend may be a regression towards a mean surprisal across the language, rather than the phrase, sentence, or document—a finding that supports a typical interpretation of UID, namely that it is the byproduct of language users maximizing the use of a (hypothetical) communication channel.

Revisiting the Uniform Information Density Hypothesis

Recently, it has been argued that encoder-decoder models can be made more interpretable by replacing the softmax function in the attention with its sparse variants. In this work, we introduce a novel, simple method for achieving sparsity in attention: we replace the softmax activation with a ReLU, and show that sparsity naturally emerges from such a formulation. Training stability is achieved with layer normalization with either a specialized initialization or an additional gating function. Our model, which we call Rectified Linear Attention (ReLA), is easy to implement and more efficient than previously proposed sparse attention mechanisms. We apply ReLA to the Transformer and conduct experiments on five machine translation tasks. ReLA achieves translation performance comparable to several strong baselines, with training and decoding speed similar to that of the vanilla attention. Our analysis shows that ReLA delivers high sparsity rate and head diversity, and the induced cross attention achieves better accuracy with respect to source-target word alignment than recent sparsified softmax-based models. Intriguingly, ReLA heads also learn to attend to nothing (i.e. 'switch off') for some queries, which is not possible with sparsified softmax alternatives.

Causal Direction of Data Collection Matters: Implications of Causal and Anticausal Learning for NLP

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2021

Is Information Density Uniform in Task-Oriented Dialogues?

Similar lecture

Multilingual Unsupervised Neural Machine Translation with Denoising Adapters

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES

Causal Direction of Data Collection Matters: Implications of Causal and Anticausal Learning for NLP

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2021

Is Information Density Uniform in Task-Oriented Dialogues?

Similar lecture

Multilingual Unsupervised Neural Machine Translation with Denoising Adapters

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES

Downloads