Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theory

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00840v1
• Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 22:33:53 GMT
• Title: Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theory
• Authors: Clara Vania, Phu Mon Htut, William Huang, Dhara Mungra, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Jason Phang, Haokun Liu, Kyunghyun Cho, Samuel R. Bowman
• Abstract summary: We evaluate 29 datasets using predictions from 18 pretrained Transformer models on individual test examples. We find that Quoref, HellaSwag, and MC-TACO are best suited for distinguishing among state-of-the-art models. We also observe span selection task format, which is used for QA datasets like QAMR or SQuAD2.0, is effective in differentiating between strong and weak models.
• Score: 53.755064720563
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent years have seen numerous NLP datasets introduced to evaluate the performance of fine-tuned models on natural language understanding tasks. Recent results from large pretrained models, though, show that many of these datasets are largely saturated and unlikely to be able to detect further progress. What kind of datasets are still effective at discriminating among strong models, and what kind of datasets should we expect to be able to detect future improvements? To measure this uniformly across datasets, we draw on Item Response Theory and evaluate 29 datasets using predictions from 18 pretrained Transformer models on individual test examples. We find that Quoref, HellaSwag, and MC-TACO are best suited for distinguishing among state-of-the-art models, while SNLI, MNLI, and CommitmentBank seem to be saturated for current strong models. We also observe span selection task format, which is used for QA datasets like QAMR or SQuAD2.0, is effective in differentiating between strong and weak models.

Related papers

• Numerical Literals in Link Prediction: A Critical Examination of Models and Datasets [2.5999037208435705]
  Link Prediction models that incorporate numerical literals have shown minor improvements on existing benchmark datasets. It is unclear whether a model is actually better in using numerical literals, or better capable of utilizing the graph structure. We propose a methodology to evaluate LP models that incorporate numerical literals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T17:55:33Z)
• Multi-document Summarization: A Comparative Evaluation [0.0]
  This paper is aimed at evaluating state-of-the-art models for Multi-document Summarization (MDS) on different types of datasets in various domains. We analyzed the performance of PRIMERA and PEG models on Big-Survey and MS$2$ datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-10T07:43:42Z)
• Think Twice: Measuring the Efficiency of Eliminating Prediction Shortcuts of Question Answering Models [3.9052860539161918]
  We propose a simple method for measuring a scale of models' reliance on any identified spurious feature. We assess the robustness towards a large set of known and newly found prediction biases for various pre-trained models and debiasing methods in Question Answering (QA) We find that while existing debiasing methods can mitigate reliance on a chosen spurious feature, the OOD performance gains of these methods can not be explained by mitigated reliance on biased features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-11T14:35:00Z)
• SynBench: Task-Agnostic Benchmarking of Pretrained Representations using Synthetic Data [78.21197488065177]
  Recent success in fine-tuning large models, that are pretrained on broad data at scale, on downstream tasks has led to a significant paradigm shift in deep learning. This paper proposes a new task-agnostic framework, textitSynBench, to measure the quality of pretrained representations using synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-06T15:25:00Z)
• Deep Learning Models for Knowledge Tracing: Review and Empirical Evaluation [2.423547527175807]
  We review and evaluate a body of deep learning knowledge tracing (DLKT) models with openly available and widely-used data sets. The evaluated DLKT models have been reimplemented for assessing and replicability of previously reported results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-30T14:19:27Z)
• Back2Future: Leveraging Backfill Dynamics for Improving Real-time Predictions in Future [73.03458424369657]
  In real-time forecasting in public health, data collection is a non-trivial and demanding task. 'Backfill' phenomenon and its effect on model performance has been barely studied in the prior literature. We formulate a novel problem and neural framework Back2Future that aims to refine a given model's predictions in real-time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-08T14:48:20Z)
• On the Efficacy of Adversarial Data Collection for Question Answering: Results from a Large-Scale Randomized Study [65.17429512679695]
  In adversarial data collection (ADC), a human workforce interacts with a model in real time, attempting to produce examples that elicit incorrect predictions. Despite ADC's intuitive appeal, it remains unclear when training on adversarial datasets produces more robust models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T00:48:33Z)
• What do we expect from Multiple-choice QA Systems? [70.86513724662302]
  We consider a top performing model on several Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) datasets. We evaluate it against a set of expectations one might have from such a model, using a series of zero-information perturbations of the model's inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-20T21:27:10Z)
• Data Rejuvenation: Exploiting Inactive Training Examples for Neural Machine Translation [86.40610684026262]
  In this work, we explore to identify the inactive training examples which contribute less to the model performance. We introduce data rejuvenation to improve the training of NMT models on large-scale datasets by exploiting inactive examples. Experimental results on WMT14 English-German and English-French datasets show that the proposed data rejuvenation consistently and significantly improves performance for several strong NMT models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T08:57:31Z)
• A Comparison of LSTM and BERT for Small Corpus [0.0]
  Recent advancements in the NLP field showed that transfer learning helps with achieving state-of-the-art results for new tasks by tuning pre-trained models instead of starting from scratch. In this paper we focus on a real-life scenario that scientists in academia and industry face frequently: given a small dataset, can we use a large pre-trained model like BERT and get better results than simple models? Our experimental results show that bidirectional LSTM models can achieve significantly higher results than a BERT model for a small dataset and these simple models get trained in much less time than tuning the pre-trained counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-11T14:01:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.