Models of reference production: How do they withstand the test of time?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14817v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:46:38 GMT
• Title: Models of reference production: How do they withstand the test of time?
• Authors: Fahime Same, Guanyi Chen, Kees van Deemter
• Abstract summary: We use the task of generating referring expressions in context as a case study and start our analysis from GREC. We ask what the performance of models would be if we assessed them on more realistic datasets. We conclude that GREC can no longer be regarded as offering a reliable assessment of models' ability to mimic human reference production.
• Score: 6.651864489482537
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In recent years, many NLP studies have focused solely on performance improvement. In this work, we focus on the linguistic and scientific aspects of NLP. We use the task of generating referring expressions in context (REG-in-context) as a case study and start our analysis from GREC, a comprehensive set of shared tasks in English that addressed this topic over a decade ago. We ask what the performance of models would be if we assessed them (1) on more realistic datasets, and (2) using more advanced methods. We test the models using different evaluation metrics and feature selection experiments. We conclude that GREC can no longer be regarded as offering a reliable assessment of models' ability to mimic human reference production, because the results are highly impacted by the choice of corpus and evaluation metrics. Our results also suggest that pre-trained language models are less dependent on the choice of corpus than classic Machine Learning models, and therefore make more robust class predictions.

Related papers

• How to Determine the Most Powerful Pre-trained Language Model without Brute Force Fine-tuning? An Empirical Survey [23.757740341834126]
  We show that H-Score generally performs well with superiorities in effectiveness and efficiency. We also outline the difficulties of consideration of training details, applicability to text generation, and consistency to certain metrics which shed light on future directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T01:17:28Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• Disco-Bench: A Discourse-Aware Evaluation Benchmark for Language Modelling [70.23876429382969]
  We propose a benchmark that can evaluate intra-sentence discourse properties across a diverse set of NLP tasks. Disco-Bench consists of 9 document-level testsets in the literature domain, which contain rich discourse phenomena. For linguistic analysis, we also design a diagnostic test suite that can examine whether the target models learn discourse knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-16T15:18:25Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)
• An Empirical Investigation of Commonsense Self-Supervision with Knowledge Graphs [67.23285413610243]
  Self-supervision based on the information extracted from large knowledge graphs has been shown to improve the generalization of language models. We study the effect of knowledge sampling strategies and sizes that can be used to generate synthetic data for adapting language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-21T19:49:04Z)
• A Generative Language Model for Few-shot Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis [90.24921443175514]
  We focus on aspect-based sentiment analysis, which involves extracting aspect term, category, and predicting their corresponding polarities. We propose to reformulate the extraction and prediction tasks into the sequence generation task, using a generative language model with unidirectional attention. Our approach outperforms the previous state-of-the-art (based on BERT) on average performance by a large margins in few-shot and full-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T18:31:53Z)
• An Application of Pseudo-Log-Likelihoods to Natural Language Scoring [5.382454613390483]
  A language model with relatively few parameters and training steps can outperform it on a recent large data set. We produce some absolute state-of-the-art results for common sense reasoning in binary choice tasks. We argue that robustness of the smaller model ought to be understood in terms of compositionality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-23T22:00:54Z)
• A Systematic Investigation of Commonsense Understanding in Large Language Models [23.430757316504316]
  Large language models have shown impressive performance on many natural language processing (NLP) tasks in a zero-shot setting. We ask whether these models exhibit commonsense understanding by evaluating models against four commonsense benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-31T22:20:36Z)
• Learning by Semantic Similarity Makes Abstractive Summarization Better [13.324006587838522]
  We compare the generated summaries from recent LM, BART, and the reference summaries from a benchmark dataset, CNN/DM. Interestingly, model-generated summaries receive higher scores relative to reference summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-18T17:59:02Z)
• Learning to Compare for Better Training and Evaluation of Open Domain Natural Language Generation Models [23.62054164511058]
  We propose to evaluate natural language generation models by learning to compare a pair of generated sentences by fine-tuning BERT. While able to be trained in a fully self-supervised fashion, our model can be further fine-tuned with a little amount of human preference annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-12T15:52:21Z)

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.