Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userGiving BERT a Calculator: Finding Operations and Arguments with Reading Comprehension
228
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Daniel Andor
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Reading comprehension models have been successfully applied to extractive text answers, but it is unclear how best to generalize these models to abstractive numerical answers. We enable a BERT-based reading comprehension model to perform lightweight numerical reasoning. We augment the model with a predefined set of executable programs which encompass simple arithmetic as well as extraction. Rather than having to learn to manipulate numbers directly, the model can pick a program and execute it. On the recent Discrete Reasoning Over Passages (DROP) dataset, designed to challenge reading comprehension models, we show a 33% absolute improvement by adding shallow programs. The model can learn to predict new operations when appropriate in a math word problem setting (Roy and Roth, 2015) with very few training examples.
rate research
Read More
Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension (MCRC) requires the model to read the passage and question, and select the correct answer among the given options. Recent state-of-the-art models have achieved impressive performance on multiple MCRC datasets. However, such performance may not reflect the models true ability of language understanding and reasoning. In this work, we adopt two approaches to investigate what BERT learns from MCRC datasets: 1) an un-readable data attack, in which we add keywords to confuse BERT, leading to a significant performance drop; and 2) an un-answerable data training, in which we train BERT on partial or shuffled input. Under un-answerable data training, BERT achieves unexpectedly high performance. Based on our experiments on the 5 key MCRC datasets - RACE, MCTest, MCScript, MCScript2.0, DREAM - we observe that 1) fine-tuned BERT mainly learns how keywords lead to correct prediction, instead of learning semantic understanding and reasoning; and 2) BERT does not need correct syntactic information to solve the task; 3) there exists artifacts in these datasets such that they can be solved even without the full context.
Pre-trained models have brought significant improvements to many NLP tasks and have been extensively analyzed. But little is known about the effect of fine-tuning on specific tasks. Intuitively, people may agree that a pre-trained model already learns semantic representations of words (e.g. synonyms are closer to each other) and fine-tuning further improves its capabilities which require more complicated reasoning (e.g. coreference resolution, entity boundary detection, etc). However, how to verify these arguments analytically and quantitatively is a challenging task and there are few works focus on this topic. In this paper, inspired by the observation that most probing tasks involve identifying matched pairs of phrases (e.g. coreference requires matching an entity and a pronoun), we propose a pairwise probe to understand BERT fine-tuning on the machine reading comprehension (MRC) task. Specifically, we identify five phenomena in MRC. According to pairwise probing tasks, we compare the performance of each layers hidden representation of pre-trained and fine-tuned BERT. The proposed pairwise probe alleviates the problem of distraction from inaccurate model training and makes a robust and quantitative comparison. Our experimental analysis leads to highly confident conclusions: (1) Fine-tuning has little effect on the fundamental and low-level information and general semantic tasks. (2) For specific abilities required for downstream tasks, fine-tuned BERT is better than pre-trained BERT and such gaps are obvious after the fifth layer.
Current reading comprehension models generalise well to in-distribution test sets, yet perform poorly on adversarially selected inputs. Most prior work on adversarial inputs studies oversensitivity: semantically invariant text perturbations that cause a models prediction to change when it should not. In this work we focus on the complementary problem: excessive prediction undersensitivity, where input text is meaningfully changed but the models prediction does not, even though it should. We formulate a noisy adversarial attack which searches among semantic variations of the question for which a model erroneously predicts the same answer, and with even higher probability. Despite comprising unanswerable questions, both SQuAD2.0 and NewsQA models are vulnerable to this attack. This indicates that although accurate, models tend to rely on spurious patterns and do not fully consider the information specified in a question. We experiment with data augmentation and adversarial training as defences, and find that both substantially decrease vulnerability to attacks on held out data, as well as held out attack spaces. Addressing undersensitivity also improves results on AddSent and AddOneSent, and models furthermore generalise better when facing train/evaluation distribution mismatch: they are less prone to overly rely on predictive cues present only in the training set, and outperform a conventional model by as much as 10.9% F1.
Reading comprehension is an important ability of human intelligence. Literacy and numeracy are two most essential foundation for people to succeed at study, at work and in life. Reading comprehension ability is a core component of literacy. In most of the education systems, developing reading comprehension ability is compulsory in the curriculum from year one to year 12. It is an indispensable ability in the dissemination of knowledge. With the emerging artificial intelligence, computers start to be able to read and understand like people in some context. They can even read better than human beings for some tasks, but have little clue in other tasks. It will be very beneficial if we can identify the levels of machine comprehension ability, which will direct us on the further improvement. Turing test is a well-known test of the difference between computer intelligence and human intelligence. In order to be able to compare the difference between people reading and machines reading, we proposed a test called (reading) Comprehension Ability Test (CAT).CAT is similar to Turing test, passing of which means we cannot differentiate people from algorithms in term of their comprehension ability. CAT has multiple levels showing the different abilities in reading comprehension, from identifying basic facts, performing inference, to understanding the intent and sentiment.
Posing reading comprehension as a generation problem provides a great deal of flexibility, allowing for open-ended questions with few restrictions on possible answers. However, progress is impeded by existing generation metrics, which rely on token overlap and are agnostic to the nuances of reading comprehension. To address this, we introduce a benchmark for training and evaluating generative reading comprehension metrics: MOdeling Correctness with Human Annotations. MOCHA contains 40K human judgement scores on model outputs from 6 diverse question answering datasets and an additional set of minimal pairs for evaluation. Using MOCHA, we train a Learned Evaluation metric for Reading Comprehension, LERC, to mimic human judgement scores. LERC outperforms baseline metrics by 10 to 36 absolute Pearson points on held-out annotations. When we evaluate robustness on minimal pairs, LERC achieves 80% accuracy, outperforming baselines by 14 to 26 absolute percentage points while leaving significant room for improvement. MOCHA presents a challenging problem for developing accurate and robust generative reading comprehension metrics.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
