Dominican Republic

Given the increasingly prominent role NLP models (will) play in our lives, it is important for human expectations of model behavior to align with actual model behavior. Using Natural Language Inference (NLI) as a case study, we investigate the extent to which human-generated explanations of models&#39; inference decisions align with how models actually make these decisions. More specifically, we define three alignment metrics that quantify how well natural language explanations align with model sensitivity to input words, as measured by integrated gradients. Then, we evaluate eight different models (the base and large versions of BERT, RoBERTa and ELECTRA, as well as anRNN and bag-of-words model), and find that the BERT-base model has the highest alignment with human-generated explanations, for all alignment metrics. Focusing in on transformers, we find that the base versions tend to have higher alignment with human-generated explanations than their larger counterparts, suggesting that increasing the number of model parameters leads, in some cases, to worse alignment with human explanations. Finally, we find that a model&#39;s alignment with human explanations is not predicted by the model&#39;s accuracy, suggesting that accuracy and alignment are complementary ways to evaluate models.

EMNLP 2021

To what extent do human explanations of model behavior align with actual model behavior?

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.

Given the increasingly prominent role NLP models (will) play in our lives, it is important for human expectations of model behavior to align with actual model behavior. Using Natural Language Inference (NLI) as a case study, we investigate the extent to which human-generated explanations of models' inference decisions align with how models actually make these decisions. More specifically, we define three alignment metrics that quantify how well natural language explanations align with model sensitivity to input words, as measured by integrated gradients. Then, we evaluate eight different models (the base and large versions of BERT, RoBERTa and ELECTRA, as well as anRNN and bag-of-words model), and find that the BERT-base model has the highest alignment with human-generated explanations, for all alignment metrics. Focusing in on transformers, we find that the base versions tend to have higher alignment with human-generated explanations than their larger counterparts, suggesting that increasing the number of model parameters leads, in some cases, to worse alignment with human explanations. Finally, we find that a model's alignment with human explanations is not predicted by the model's accuracy, suggesting that accuracy and alignment are complementary ways to evaluate models.

workshop paper

Understanding the origins of militarized conflict is a complex, yet important undertaking. Existing research seeks to build this understanding by considering bi-lateral relationships between entity pairs (dyadic causes) and multi-lateral relationships among multiple entities (systemic causes). The aim of this work is to compare these two causes in terms of how they correlate with conflict between two entities. We do this by devising a set of textual and graph-based features which represent each of the causes. The features are extracted from Wikipedia and modeled as a large graph. Nodes in this graph represent entities connected by labeled edges representing ally or enemy-relationships. This allows casting the problem as an edge classification task, which we term dyad classification. We propose and evaluate classifiers to determine if a particular pair of entities are allies or enemies. Our results suggest that our systemic features might be slightly better correlates of conflict. Further, we find that Wikipedia articles of allies are semantically more similar than enemies.

Classifying Dyads for Militarized Conflict Analysis

**Anthology paper link:**

https://aclanthology.org/2021.emnlp-main.760/

**Abstract:**

The task of knowledge base population (KBP) aims to discover facts about entities from texts and expand a knowledge base with these facts. Previous studies shape end-to-end KBP as a machine translation task, which is required to convert unordered fact into a sequence according to a pre-specified order. However, the facts stated in a sentence are unordered in essence. In this paper, we formulate end-to-end KBP as a direct set generation problem, avoiding considering the order of multiple facts. To solve the set generation problem, we propose networks featured by transformers with non-autoregressive parallel decoding. Unlike previous approaches that use an autoregressive decoder to generate facts one by one, the proposed networks can directly output the final set of facts in one shot. Furthermore, to train the networks, we also design a set-based loss that forces unique predictions via bipartite matching. Compared with cross-entropy loss that highly penalizes small shifts in fact order, the proposed bipartite matching loss is invariant to any permutation of predictions. Benefiting from getting rid of the burden of predicting the order of multiple facts, our proposed networks achieve state-of-the-art (SoTA) performance on two benchmark datasets.

Set Generation Networks for End-to-End Knowledge Base Population

Various measures have been proposed to quantify human-like social biases in word embeddings. However, bias scores based on these measures can suffer from measurement error. One indication of measurement quality is reliability, concerning the extent to which a measure produces consistent results. In this paper, we assess three types of reliability of word embedding gender bias measures, namely test-retest reliability, inter-rater consistency, and internal consistency. Specifically, we investigate the consistency of bias scores across different choices of random seeds, scoring rules, and words. Furthermore, we analyze the effects of various factors on these measures' reliability scores. Our findings inform better design of word embedding gender bias measures. Moreover, we urge researchers to be more critical about the application of such measures.

Assessing the Reliability of Word Embedding Gender Bias Measures

Question answering (QA) primarily descends from two branches of research: (1) Alan Turing's investigation of machine intelligence at Manchester University and (2) Cyril Cleverdon's comparison of library card catalog indices at Cranfield University. This position paper names and distinguishes these paradigms. Despite substantial overlap, subtle but significant distinctions exert an outsize influence on research. While one evaluation paradigm values creating more intelligent QA systems, the other paradigm values building QA systems that appeal to users. By better understanding the epistemic heritage of QA, researchers, academia, and industry can more effectively accelerate QA research.

Evaluation Paradigms in Question Answering

Numerical reasoning based machine reading comprehension is a task that involves reading comprehension along with using arithmetic operations such as addition, subtraction, sorting, and counting. The DROP benchmark (Dua et al., 2019) is a recent dataset that has inspired the design of NLP models aimed at solving this task. The current standings of these models in the DROP leaderboard, over standard metrics, suggest that the models have achieved near-human performance. However, does this mean that these models have learned to reason? In this paper, we present a controlled study on some of the top-performing model architectures for the task of numerical reasoning. Our observations suggest that the standard metrics are incapable of measuring progress towards such tasks.

Numerical reasoning in machine reading comprehension tasks: are we there yet?

We introduce deepQuest-py, a framework for training and evaluation of large and light-weight models for Quality Estimation (QE). deepQuest-py provides access to (1) state-of-the-art models based on pre-trained Transformers for sentence-level and word-level QE; (2) light-weight and efficient sentence-level models implemented via knowledge distillation; and (3) a web interface for testing models and visualising their predictions. deepQuest-py is available at https://github.com/sheffieldnlp/deepQuest-py under a CC BY-NC-SA licence.

deepQuest-py: Large and Distilled Models for Quality Estimation

We present ARETA, an automatic error type annotation system for Modern Standard Arabic. We design ARETA to address Arabic’s morphological richness and orthographic ambiguity. We base our error taxonomy on the Arabic Learner Corpus (ALC) Error Tagset with some modifications. ARETA achieves a performance of 85.8% (micro average F1 score) on a manually annotated blind test portion of ALC. We also demonstrate ARETA’s usability by applying it to a number of submissions from the QALB 2014 shared task for Arabic grammatical error correction. The resulting analyses give helpful insights on the strengths and weaknesses of different submissions, which is more useful than the opaque M2 scoring metrics used in the shared task. ARETA employs a large Arabic morphological analyzer but is completely unsupervised otherwise. We make ARETA publicly available.

Automatic Error Type Annotation for Arabic

Previous work on probing word representations for linguistic knowledge has focused on interpolation tasks.
In this paper, we instead analyse probes in an extrapolation setting, where the inputs at test time are deliberately chosen to be `harder' than the training examples.
We argue that such an analysis can shed further light on the open question whether probes actually decode linguistic knowledge, or merely learn the diagnostic task from shallow features.
To quantify the hardness of an example, we consider scoring functions based on linguistic, statistical, and learning-related criteria, all of which are applicable to a broad range of NLP tasks.
We discuss the relative merits of these criteria in the context of two syntactic probing tasks, part-of-speech tagging and syntactic dependency labelling.
From our theoretical and experimental analysis, we conclude that distance-based and hard statistical criteria show the clearest differences between interpolation and extrapolation settings, while at the same time being transparent, intuitive, and easy to control.

Test Harder than You Train: Probing with Extrapolation Splits

Word meaning is notoriously difficult to capture, both synchronically and diachronically. In this paper, we describe the creation of the largest resource of graded contextualized, diachronic word meaning annotation in four different languages, based on 100,000 human semantic proximity judgments. We describe in detail the multi-round incremental annotation process, the choice for a clustering algorithm to group usages into senses, and possible – diachronic and synchronic – uses for this dataset.

DWUG: A large Resource of Diachronic Word Usage Graphs in Four Languages

Counterfactual statements describe events that did not or cannot take place.
We consider the problem of counterfactual detection (CFD) in product reviews.
For this purpose, we annotate a multilingual CFD dataset from Amazon product reviews covering counterfactual statements written in English, German, and Japanese languages. The dataset is unique as it contains counterfactuals in multiple languages, covers a new application area of e-commerce reviews, and provides high quality professional annotations. We train CFD models using different text representation methods and classifiers. We find that these models are robust against the selectional biases introduced due to cue phrase-based sentence selection. Moreover, our CFD dataset is compatible with prior datasets and can be merged to learn accurate CFD models. Applying machine translation on English counterfactual examples to create multilingual data performs poorly, demonstrating the language-specificity of this problem, which has been ignored so far.

To what extent do human explanations of model behavior align with actual model behavior?

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2021

Classifying Dyads for Militarized Conflict Analysis

Similar lecture

Are Transformers a Modern Version of ELIZA? Observations on French Object Verb Agreement

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES

To what extent do human explanations of model behavior align with actual model behavior?

.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

Classifying Dyads for Militarized Conflict Analysis

Similar lecture

Are Transformers a Modern Version of ELIZA? Observations on French Object Verb Agreement

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES

Downloads