Single-Sentence Reader: A Novel Approach for Addressing Answer Position Bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04566v4
• Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 14:29:54 GMT
• Title: Single-Sentence Reader: A Novel Approach for Addressing Answer Position Bias
• Authors: Son Quoc Tran and Matt Kretchmar
• Abstract summary: We propose a Single-Sentence Reader as a new approach for addressing answer position bias in MRC. Remarkably, in our experiments with six different models, our proposed Single-Sentence Readers trained on biased dataset achieve results that nearly match those of models trained on normal dataset.
• Score: 0.40792653193642503
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC) models tend to take advantage of spurious correlations (also known as dataset bias or annotation artifacts in the research community). Consequently, these models may perform the MRC task without fully comprehending the given context and question, which is undesirable since it may result in low robustness against distribution shift. The main focus of this paper is answer-position bias, where a significant percentage of training questions have answers located solely in the first sentence of the context. We propose a Single-Sentence Reader as a new approach for addressing answer position bias in MRC. Remarkably, in our experiments with six different models, our proposed Single-Sentence Readers trained on biased dataset achieve results that nearly match those of models trained on normal dataset, proving their effectiveness in addressing the answer position bias. Our study also discusses several challenges our Single-Sentence Readers encounter and proposes a potential solution.

Related papers

• Judging with Confidence: Calibrating Autoraters to Preference Distributions [56.17041629492863]
  We argue that a reliable autorater must learn to model the full distribution of preferences defined by a target population.<n>We present two learning methods tailored to different data conditions.<n>Our results show that finetuning autoraters with a distribution-matching objective leads to verbalized probability predictions that are better aligned with the target preference distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T20:36:41Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• SCOPE: Stochastic and Counterbiased Option Placement for Evaluating Large Language Models [0.27309692684728604]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve inflated scores on multiple-choice tasks by exploiting inherent biases in option positions or labels.<n>This study introduces SCOPE, an evaluation framework designed to measure and mitigate such selection bias in a dataset-independent manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-24T08:28:17Z)
• Class-Conditional Distribution Balancing for Group Robust Classification [11.525201208566925]
  Spurious correlations that lead models to correct predictions for the wrong reasons pose a critical challenge for robust real-world generalization. We offer a novel perspective by reframing the spurious correlations as imbalances or mismatches in class-conditional distributions. We propose a simple yet effective robust learning method that eliminates the need for both bias annotations and predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T07:15:53Z)
• Reasoning Beyond Bias: A Study on Counterfactual Prompting and Chain of Thought Reasoning [0.0]
  We show that differences in learned regularities across answer options are predictive of model preferences and mirror human test-taking strategies. We introduce two novel methods: Counterfactual Prompting with Chain of Thought (CoT) and Counterfactual Prompting with Agnostically Primed CoT (APriCoT) Our results suggest that mitigating bias requires a "System-2" like process and that CoT reasoning is susceptible to confirmation bias under some prompting methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T10:34:50Z)
• Towards Real-world Debiasing: Rethinking Evaluation, Challenge, and Solution [17.080528126651977]
  We introduce two novel real-world-inspired biases to bridge this gap and build a systematic evaluation framework for real-world debiasing.<n>We propose a simple yet effective approach named Debias in Destruction (DiD) to address the challenge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T06:06:41Z)
• Improving Bias Mitigation through Bias Experts in Natural Language Understanding [10.363406065066538]
  We propose a new debiasing framework that introduces binary classifiers between the auxiliary model and the main model. Our proposed strategy improves the bias identification ability of the auxiliary model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-06T16:15:00Z)
• Dataset Bias Mitigation in Multiple-Choice Visual Question Answering and Beyond [93.96982273042296]
  Vision-language (VL) understanding tasks evaluate models' comprehension of complex visual scenes through multiple-choice questions. We have identified two dataset biases that models can exploit as shortcuts to resolve various VL tasks correctly without proper understanding. We propose Adversarial Data Synthesis (ADS) to generate synthetic training and debiased evaluation data. We then introduce Intra-sample Counterfactual Training (ICT) to assist models in utilizing the synthesized training data, particularly the counterfactual data, via focusing on intra-sample differentiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T08:09:42Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• SMoA: Sparse Mixture of Adapters to Mitigate Multiple Dataset Biases [27.56143777363971]
  We propose a new debiasing method Sparse Mixture-of-Adapters (SMoA), which can mitigate multiple dataset biases effectively and efficiently. Experiments on Natural Language Inference and Paraphrase Identification tasks demonstrate that SMoA outperforms full-finetuning, adapter tuning baselines, and prior strong debiasing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-28T08:47:20Z)
• Debiasing Vision-Language Models via Biased Prompts [79.04467131711775]
  We propose a general approach for debiasing vision-language foundation models by projecting out biased directions in the text embedding. We show that debiasing only the text embedding with a calibrated projection matrix suffices to yield robust classifiers and fair generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T20:09:33Z)
• Debiasing Stance Detection Models with Counterfactual Reasoning and Adversarial Bias Learning [15.68462203989933]
  Stance detection models tend to rely on dataset bias in the text part as a shortcut. We propose an adversarial bias learning module to model the bias more accurately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T16:20:56Z)
• Unbiased Math Word Problems Benchmark for Mitigating Solving Bias [72.8677805114825]
  Current solvers exist solving bias which consists of data bias and learning bias due to biased dataset and improper training strategy. Our experiments verify MWP solvers are easy to be biased by the biased training datasets which do not cover diverse questions for each problem narrative of all MWPs. An MWP can be naturally solved by multiple equivalent equations while current datasets take only one of the equivalent equations as ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-17T06:07:04Z)
• Learning Sample Importance for Cross-Scenario Video Temporal Grounding [30.82619216537177]
  The paper investigates some superficial biases specific to the temporal grounding task. We propose a novel method called Debiased Temporal Language Localizer (DebiasTLL) to prevent the model from naively memorizing the biases. We evaluate the proposed model in cross-scenario temporal grounding, where the train / test data are heterogeneously sourced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-08T15:41:38Z)
• Balancing out Bias: Achieving Fairness Through Training Reweighting [58.201275105195485]
  Bias in natural language processing arises from models learning characteristics of the author such as gender and race. Existing methods for mitigating and measuring bias do not directly account for correlations between author demographics and linguistic variables. This paper introduces a very simple but highly effective method for countering bias using instance reweighting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T23:40:28Z)
• Learning Bias-Invariant Representation by Cross-Sample Mutual Information Minimization [77.8735802150511]
  We propose a cross-sample adversarial debiasing (CSAD) method to remove the bias information misused by the target task. The correlation measurement plays a critical role in adversarial debiasing and is conducted by a cross-sample neural mutual information estimator. We conduct thorough experiments on publicly available datasets to validate the advantages of the proposed method over state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-11T21:17:02Z)

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.