اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدIs My Model Using The Right Evidence? Systematic Probes for Examining Evidence-Based Tabular Reasoning
74
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
While neural models routinely report state-of-the-art performance across NLP tasks involving reasoning, their outputs are often observed to not properly use and reason on the evidence presented to them in the inputs. A model that reasons properly is expected to attend to the right parts of the input, be self-consistent in its predictions across examples, avoid spurious patterns in inputs, and to ignore biasing from its underlying pre-trained language model in a nuanced, context-sensitive fashion (e.g. handling counterfactuals). Do todays models do so? In this paper, we study this question using the problem of reasoning on tabular data. The tabular nature of the input is particularly suited for the study as it admits systematic probes targeting the properties listed above. Our experiments demonstrate that a BERT-based model representative of todays state-of-the-art fails to properly reason on the following counts: it often (a) misses the relevant evidence, (b) suffers from hypothesis and knowledge biases, and, (c) relies on annotation artifacts and knowledge from pre-trained language models as primary evidence rather than relying on reasoning on the premises in the tabular input.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Fact verification is a challenging task that requires simultaneously reasoning and aggregating over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to evaluate the truthfulness of a claim. Existing approaches typically (i) explore the semantic interaction betw
een the claim and evidence at different granularity levels but fail to capture their topical consistency during the reasoning process, which we believe is crucial for verification; (ii) aggregate multiple pieces of evidence equally without considering their implicit stances to the claim, thereby introducing spurious information. To alleviate the above issues, we propose a novel topic-aware evidence reasoning and stance-aware aggregation model for more accurate fact verification, with the following four key properties: 1) checking topical consistency between the claim and evidence; 2) maintaining topical coherence among multiple pieces of evidence; 3) ensuring semantic similarity between the global topic information and the semantic representation of evidence; 4) aggregating evidence based on their implicit stances to the claim. Extensive experiments conducted on the two benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of the proposed model over several state-of-the-art approaches for fact verification. The source code can be obtained from https://github.com/jasenchn/TARSA.
Reasoning machine reading comprehension (R-MRC) aims to answer complex questions that require discrete reasoning based on text. To support discrete reasoning, evidence, typically the concise textual fragments that describe question-related facts, inc
luding topic entities and attribute values, are crucial clues from question to answer. However, previous end-to-end methods that achieve state-of-the-art performance rarely solve the problem by paying enough emphasis on the modeling of evidence, missing the opportunity to further improve the models reasoning ability for R-MRC. To alleviate the above issue, in this paper, we propose an evidence-emphasized discrete reasoning approach (EviDR), in which sentence and clause level evidence is first detected based on distant supervision, and then used to drive a reasoning module implemented with a relational heterogeneous graph convolutional network to derive answers. Extensive experiments are conducted on DROP (discrete reasoning over paragraphs) dataset, and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach. In addition, qualitative analysis verifies the capability of the proposed evidence-emphasized discrete reasoning for R-MRC.
Significant progress has been made in deep-learning based Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) systems in the past two decades. However, little research has been put to understand and interpret the black-box nature of these deep-learning based scoring model
s. Recent work shows that automated scoring systems are prone to even common-sense adversarial samples. Their lack of natural language understanding capability raises questions on the models being actively used by millions of candidates for life-changing decisions. With scoring being a highly multi-modal task, it becomes imperative for scoring models to be validated and tested on all these modalities. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms and why they are susceptible to adversarial samples. We find that the systems tested consider essays not as a piece of prose having the characteristics of natural flow of speech and grammatical structure, but as `word-soups where a few words are much more important than the other words. Removing the context surrounding those few important words causes the prose to lose the flow of speech and grammar, however has little impact on the predicted score. We also find that since the models are not semantically grounded with world-knowledge and common sense, adding false facts such as ``the world is flat actually increases the score instead of decreasing it.
The current state-of-the-art generative models for open-domain question answering (ODQA) have focused on generating direct answers from unstructured textual information. However, a large amount of worlds knowledge is stored in structured databases, a
nd need to be accessed using query languages such as SQL. Furthermore, query languages can answer questions that require complex reasoning, as well as offering full explainability. In this paper, we propose a hybrid framework that takes both textual and tabular evidence as input and generates either direct answers or SQL queries depending on which form could better answer the question. The generated SQL queries can then be executed on the associated databases to obtain the final answers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that applies Text2SQL to ODQA tasks. Empirically, we demonstrate that on several ODQA datasets, the hybrid methods consistently outperforms the baseline models that only take homogeneous input by a large margin. Specifically we achieve state-of-the-art performance on OpenSQuAD dataset using a T5-base model. In a detailed analysis, we demonstrate that the being able to generate structural SQL queries can always bring gains, especially for those questions that requires complex reasoning.
We draw a formal connection between using synthetic training data to optimize neural network parameters and approximate, Bayesian, model-based reasoning. In particular, training a neural network using synthetic data can be viewed as learning a propos
al distribution generator for approximate inference in the synthetic-data generative model. We demonstrate this connection in a recognition task where we develop a novel Captcha-breaking architecture and train it using synthetic data, demonstrating both state-of-the-art performance and a way of computing task-specific posterior uncertainty. Using a neural network trained this way, we also demonstrate successful breaking of real-world Captchas currently used by Facebook and Wikipedia. Reasoning from these empirical results and drawing connections with Bayesian modeling, we discuss the robustness of synthetic data results and suggest important considerations for ensuring good neural network generalization when training with synthetic data.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
