Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAn Empirical Comparison of Instance Attribution Methods for NLP
207
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Pouya Pezeshkpour
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Widespread adoption of deep models has motivated a pressing need for approaches to interpret network outputs and to facilitate model debugging. Instance attribution methods constitute one means of accomplishing these goals by retrieving training instances that (may have) led to a particular prediction. Influence functions (IF; Koh and Liang 2017) provide machinery for doing this by quantifying the effect that perturbing individual train instances would have on a specific test prediction. However, even approximating the IF is computationally expensive, to the degree that may be prohibitive in many cases. Might simpler approaches (e.g., retrieving train examples most similar to a given test point) perform comparably? In this work, we evaluate the degree to which different potential instance attribution agree with respect to the importance of training samples. We find that simple retrieval methods yield training instances that differ from those identified via gradient-based methods (such as IFs), but that nonetheless exhibit desirable characteristics similar to more complex attribution methods. Code for all methods and experiments in this paper is available at: https://github.com/successar/instance_attributions_NLP.
rate research
Read More
Training the large deep neural networks that dominate NLP requires large datasets. Many of these are collected automatically or via crowdsourcing, and may exhibit systematic biases or annotation artifacts. By the latter, we mean correlations between inputs and outputs that are spurious, insofar as they do not represent a generally held causal relationship between features and classes; models that exploit such correlations may appear to perform a given task well, but fail on out of sample data. In this paper we propose methods to facilitate identification of training data artifacts, using new hybrid approaches that combine saliency maps (which highlight important input features) with instance attribution methods (which retrieve training samples influential to a given prediction). We show that this proposed training-feature attribution approach can be used to uncover artifacts in training data, and use it to identify previously unreported artifacts in a few standard NLP datasets. We execute a small user study to evaluate whether these methods are useful to NLP researchers in practice, with promising results. We make code for all methods and experiments in this paper available.
Multi-head attention plays a crucial role in the recent success of Transformer models, which leads to consistent performance improvements over conventional attention in various applications. The popular belief is that this effectiveness stems from the ability of jointly attending multiple positions. In this paper, we first demonstrate that jointly attending multiple positions is not a unique feature of multi-head attention, as multi-layer single-head attention also attends multiple positions and is more effective. Then, we suggest the main advantage of the multi-head attention is the training stability, since it has less number of layers than the single-head attention, when attending the same number of positions. For example, 24-layer 16-head Transformer (BERT-large) and 384-layer single-head Transformer has the same total attention head number and roughly the same model size, while the multi-head one is significantly shallower. Meanwhile, we show that, with recent advances in deep learning, we can successfully stabilize the training of the 384-layer Transformer. As the training difficulty is no longer a bottleneck, substantially deeper single-head Transformer achieves consistent performance improvements without tuning hyper-parameters.
With the rapid development of NLP research, leaderboards have emerged as one tool to track the performance of various systems on various NLP tasks. They are effective in this goal to some extent, but generally present a rather simplistic one-dimensional view of the submitted systems, communicated only through holistic accuracy numbers. In this paper, we present a new conceptualization and implementation of NLP evaluation: the ExplainaBoard, which in addition to inheriting the functionality of the standard leaderboard, also allows researchers to (i) diagnose strengths and weaknesses of a single system (e.g.~what is the best-performing system bad at?) (ii) interpret relationships between multiple systems. (e.g.~where does system A outperform system B? What if we combine systems A, B, and C?) and (iii) examine prediction results closely (e.g.~what are common errors made by multiple systems, or in what contexts do particular errors occur?). So far, ExplainaBoard covers more than 400 systems, 50 datasets, 40 languages, and 12 tasks. ExplainaBoard keeps updated and is recently upgraded by supporting (1) multilingual multi-task benchmark, (2) meta-evaluation, and (3) more complicated task: machine translation, which reviewers also suggested.} We not only released an online platform on the website url{http://explainaboard.nlpedia.ai/} but also make our evaluation tool an API with MIT Licence at Github url{https://github.com/neulab/explainaBoard} and PyPi url{https://pypi.org/project/interpret-eval/} that allows users to conveniently assess their models offline. We additionally release all output files from systems that we have run or collected to motivate output-driven research in the future.
NLP has achieved great progress in the past decade through the use of neural models and large labeled datasets. The dependence on abundant data prevents NLP models from being applied to low-resource settings or novel tasks where significant time, money, or expertise is required to label massive amounts of textual data. Recently, data augmentation methods have been explored as a means of improving data efficiency in NLP. To date, there has been no systematic empirical overview of data augmentation for NLP in the limited labeled data setting, making it difficult to understand which methods work in which settings. In this paper, we provide an empirical survey of recent progress on data augmentation for NLP in the limited labeled data setting, summarizing the landscape of methods (including token-level augmentations, sentence-level augmentations, adversarial augmentations, and hidden-space augmentations) and carrying out experiments on 11 datasets covering topics/news classification, inference tasks, paraphrasing tasks, and single-sentence tasks. Based on the results, we draw several conclusions to help practitioners choose appropriate augmentations in different settings and discuss the current challenges and future directions for limited data learning in NLP.
The field of NLP has seen unprecedented achievements in recent years. Most notably, with the advent of large-scale pre-trained Transformer-based language models, such as BERT, there has been a noticeable improvement in text representation. It is, however, unclear whether these improvements translate to noisy user-generated text, such as tweets. In this paper, we present an experimental survey of a wide range of well-known text representation techniques for the task of text clustering on noisy Twitter data. Our results indicate that the more advanced models do not necessarily work best on tweets and that more exploration in this area is needed.
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
