An Analysis of Negation in Natural Language Understanding Corpora

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08929v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 20:31:53 GMT
• Title: An Analysis of Negation in Natural Language Understanding Corpora
• Authors: Md Mosharaf Hossain, Dhivya Chinnappa, and Eduardo Blanco
• Abstract summary: We show that popular corpora have few negations compared to general-purpose English. Experiments show that state-of-the-art transformers trained with these corpora obtain substantially worse results with instances that contain negation.
• Score: 10.692655009160742
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper analyzes negation in eight popular corpora spanning six natural language understanding tasks. We show that these corpora have few negations compared to general-purpose English, and that the few negations in them are often unimportant. Indeed, one can often ignore negations and still make the right predictions. Additionally, experimental results show that state-of-the-art transformers trained with these corpora obtain substantially worse results with instances that contain negation, especially if the negations are important. We conclude that new corpora accounting for negation are needed to solve natural language understanding tasks when negation is present.

Related papers

• Paraphrasing in Affirmative Terms Improves Negation Understanding [9.818585902859363]
  Negation is a common linguistic phenomenon. We show improvements with CondaQA, a large corpus requiring reasoning with negation, and five natural language understanding tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T17:30:03Z)
• Revisiting subword tokenization: A case study on affixal negation in large language models [57.75279238091522]
  We measure the impact of affixal negation on modern English large language models (LLMs) We conduct experiments using LLMs with different subword tokenization methods. We show that models can, on the whole, reliably recognize the meaning of affixal negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T03:14:27Z)
• This is not a Dataset: A Large Negation Benchmark to Challenge Large Language Models [4.017326849033009]
  We try to clarify the reasons for the sub-optimal performance of large language models understanding negation. We introduce a large semi-automatically generated dataset of circa 400,000 descriptive sentences about commonsense knowledge. We have used our dataset with the largest available open LLMs in a zero-shot approach to grasp their generalization and inference capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T15:38:21Z)
• Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks [58.32362243122714]
  We evaluate the ability of current-generation auto-regressive language models to handle negation. We show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T01:16:37Z)
• We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguity [136.8068419824318]
  Managing ambiguity is a key part of human language understanding. We characterize ambiguity in a sentence by its effect on entailment relations with another sentence. We show that a multilabel NLI model can flag political claims in the wild that are misleading due to ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T17:57:58Z)
• CONDAQA: A Contrastive Reading Comprehension Dataset for Reasoning about Negation [21.56001677478673]
  We present the first English reading comprehension dataset which requires reasoning about the implications of negated statements in paragraphs. CONDAQA features 14,182 question-answer pairs with over 200 unique negation cues. The best performing model on CONDAQA (UnifiedQA-v2-3b) achieves only 42% on our consistency metric, well below human performance which is 81%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-01T06:10:26Z)
• Leveraging Affirmative Interpretations from Negation Improves Natural Language Understanding [10.440501875161003]
  Negation poses a challenge in many natural language understanding tasks. We show that doing so benefits models for three natural language understanding tasks. We build a plug-and-play neural generator that given a negated statement generates an affirmative interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-26T05:22:27Z)
• Not another Negation Benchmark: The NaN-NLI Test Suite for Sub-clausal Negation [59.307534363825816]
  Negation is poorly captured by current language models, although the extent of this problem is not widely understood. We introduce a natural language inference (NLI) test suite to enable probing the capabilities of NLP methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-06T23:39:01Z)
• A Question-Answer Driven Approach to Reveal Affirmative Interpretations from Verbal Negations [6.029488932793797]
  We create a new corpus consisting of 4,472 verbal negations and discover that 67.1% of them convey that an event actually occurred. Annotators generate and answer 7,277 questions for the 3,001 negations that convey an affirmative interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T17:08:30Z)
• Improving negation detection with negation-focused pre-training [58.32362243122714]
  Negation is a common linguistic feature that is crucial in many language understanding tasks. Recent work has shown that state-of-the-art NLP models underperform on samples containing negation. We propose a new negation-focused pre-training strategy, involving targeted data augmentation and negation masking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T02:41:11Z)
• Understanding by Understanding Not: Modeling Negation in Language Models [81.21351681735973]
  Negation is a core construction in natural language. We propose to augment the language modeling objective with an unlikelihood objective that is based on negated generic sentences. We reduce the mean top1 error rate to 4% on the negated LAMA dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T21:58:35Z)

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.