While recent models have achieved human-level scores on many NLP datasets, we observe that they are considerably sensitive to small changes in input. As an alternative to the standard approach of addressing this issue by constructing training sets of
completely new examples, we propose doing so via minimal perturbation of examples. Specifically, our approach involves first collecting a set of seed examples and then applying human-driven natural perturbations (as opposed to rule-based machine perturbations), which often change the gold label as well. Local perturbations have the advantage of being relatively easier (and hence cheaper) to create than writing out completely new examples. To evaluate the impact of this phenomenon, we consider a recent question-answering dataset (BoolQ) and study the benefit of our approach as a function of the perturbation cost ratio, the relative cost of perturbing an existing question vs. creating a new one from scratch. We find that when natural perturbations are moderately cheaper to create, it is more effective to train models using them: such models exhibit higher robustness and better generalization, while retaining performance on the original BoolQ dataset.
Empirical research in Natural Language Processing (NLP) has adopted a narrow set of principles for assessing hypotheses, relying mainly on p-value computation, which suffers from several known issues. While alternative proposals have been well-debate
d and adopted in other fields, they remain rarely discussed or used within the NLP community. We address this gap by contrasting various hypothesis assessment techniques, especially those not commonly used in the field (such as evaluations based on Bayesian inference). Since these statistical techniques differ in the hypotheses they can support, we argue that practitioners should first decide their target hypothesis before choosing an assessment method. This is crucial because common fallacies, misconceptions, and misinterpretation surrounding hypothesis assessment methods often stem from a discrepancy between what one would like to claim versus what the method used actually assesses. Our survey reveals that these issues are omnipresent in the NLP research community. As a step forward, we provide best practices and guidelines tailored to NLP research, as well as an easy-to-use package called HyBayes for Bayesian assessment of hypotheses, complementing existing tools.
Discrete integration in a high dimensional space of n variables poses fundamental challenges. The WISH algorithm reduces the intractable discrete integration problem into n optimization queries subject to randomized constraints, obtaining a constant
approximation guarantee. The optimization queries are expensive, which limits the applicability of WISH. We propose AdaWISH, which is able to obtain the same guarantee but accesses only a small subset of queries of WISH. For example, when the number of function values is bounded by a constant, AdaWISH issues only O(log n) queries. The key idea is to query adaptively, taking advantage of the shape of the weight function being integrated. In general, we prove that AdaWISH has a regret of only O(log n) relative to an idealistic oracle that issues queries at data-dependent optimal points. Experimentally, AdaWISH gives precise estimates for discrete integration problems, of the same quality as that of WISH and better than several competing approaches, on a variety of probabilistic inference benchmarks. At the same time, it saves substantially on the number of optimization queries compared to WISH. On a suite of UAI inference challenge benchmarks, it saves 81.5% of WISH queries while retaining the quality of results.
We propose a novel method for exploiting the semantic structure of text to answer multiple-choice questions. The approach is especially suitable for domains that require reasoning over a diverse set of linguistic constructs but have limited training
data. To address these challenges, we present the first system, to the best of our knowledge, that reasons over a wide range of semantic abstractions of the text, which are derived using off-the-shelf, general-purpose, pre-trained natural language modules such as semantic role labelers, coreference resolvers, and dependency parsers. Representing multiple abstractions as a family of graphs, we translate question answering (QA) into a search for an optimal subgraph that satisfies certain global and local properties. This formulation generalizes several prior structured QA systems. Our system, SEMANTICILP, demonstrates strong performance on two domains simultaneously. In particular, on a collection of challenging science QA datasets, it outperforms various state-of-the-art approaches, including neural models, broad coverage information retrieval, and specialized techniques using structured knowledge bases, by 2%-6%.
Many probabilistic inference tasks involve summations over exponentially large sets. Recently, it has been shown that these problems can be reduced to solving a polynomial number of MAP inference queries for a model augmented with randomly generated
parity constraints. By exploiting a connection with max-likelihood decoding of binary codes, we show that these optimizations are computationally hard. Inspired by iterative message passing decoding algorithms, we propose an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) formulation for the problem, enhanced with new sparsification techniques to improve decoding performance. By solving the ILP through a sequence of LP relaxations, we get both lower and upper bounds on the partition function, which hold with high probability and are much tighter than those obtained with variational methods.
