Learning Shortcuts: On the Misleading Promise of NLU in Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09615v2
• Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:08:12 GMT
• Title: Learning Shortcuts: On the Misleading Promise of NLU in Language Models
• Authors: Geetanjali Bihani, Julia Taylor Rayz
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have enabled significant performance gains in the field of natural language processing. Recent studies have found that LLMs often resort to shortcuts when performing tasks, creating an illusion of enhanced performance while lacking generalizability in their decision rules.
• Score: 4.8951183832371
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The advent of large language models (LLMs) has enabled significant performance gains in the field of natural language processing. However, recent studies have found that LLMs often resort to shortcuts when performing tasks, creating an illusion of enhanced performance while lacking generalizability in their decision rules. This phenomenon introduces challenges in accurately assessing natural language understanding in LLMs. Our paper provides a concise survey of relevant research in this area and puts forth a perspective on the implications of shortcut learning in the evaluation of language models, specifically for NLU tasks. This paper urges more research efforts to be put towards deepening our comprehension of shortcut learning, contributing to the development of more robust language models, and raising the standards of NLU evaluation in real-world scenarios.

Related papers

• Analyzing and Adapting Large Language Models for Few-Shot Multilingual NLU: Are We There Yet? [82.02076369811402]
  Supervised fine-tuning (SFT), supervised instruction tuning (SIT) and in-context learning (ICL) are three alternative, de facto standard approaches to few-shot learning. We present an extensive and systematic comparison of the three approaches, testing them on 6 high- and low-resource languages, three different NLU tasks, and a myriad of language and domain setups. Our observations show that supervised instruction tuning has the best trade-off between performance and resource requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T10:48:13Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• Supervised Knowledge Makes Large Language Models Better In-context Learners [94.89301696512776]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit emerging in-context learning abilities through prompt engineering. The challenge of improving the generalizability and factuality of LLMs in natural language understanding and question answering remains under-explored. We propose a framework that enhances the reliability of LLMs as it: 1) generalizes out-of-distribution data, 2) elucidates how LLMs benefit from discriminative models, and 3) minimizes hallucinations in generative tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-26T07:24:46Z)
• Are Large Language Models Good Fact Checkers: A Preliminary Study [26.023148371263012]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn significant attention due to their outstanding reasoning capabilities and extensive knowledge repository. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate various LLMs in tackling specific fact-checking subtasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T05:04:52Z)
• L2CEval: Evaluating Language-to-Code Generation Capabilities of Large Language Models [102.00201523306986]
  We present L2CEval, a systematic evaluation of the language-to-code generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We analyze the factors that potentially affect their performance, such as model size, pretraining data, instruction tuning, and different prompting methods. In addition to assessing model performance, we measure confidence calibration for the models and conduct human evaluations of the output programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:57:00Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Large Language Models Are Not Strong Abstract Reasoners [12.354660792999269]
  Large Language Models have shown tremendous performance on a variety of natural language processing tasks. It is unclear whether LLMs can achieve human-like cognitive capabilities or whether these models are still fundamentally circumscribed. We introduce a new benchmark for evaluating language models beyond memorization on abstract reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T04:50:29Z)
• Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners: Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning [28.162661418161466]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown great potential for in-context learning. This paper investigates the reliance of LLMs on shortcuts or spurious correlations within prompts. We uncover a surprising finding that larger models are more likely to utilize shortcuts in prompts during inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T20:56:30Z)
• Shortcut Learning of Large Language Models in Natural Language Understanding [119.45683008451698]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance on a series of natural language understanding tasks. They might rely on dataset bias and artifacts as shortcuts for prediction. This has significantly affected their generalizability and adversarial robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-25T03:51:39Z)

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.