Analysis of Systems' Performance in Natural Language Processing Competitions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04693v1
• Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 17:42:40 GMT
• Title: Analysis of Systems' Performance in Natural Language Processing Competitions
• Authors: Sergio Nava-Mu\~noz and Mario Graff and Hugo Jair Escalante
• Abstract summary: This manuscript describes an evaluation methodology for statistically analyzing competition results and competition. The proposed methodology offers several advantages, including off-the-shell comparisons with correction mechanisms and the inclusion of confidence intervals. Our analysis shows the potential usefulness of our methodology for effectively evaluating competition results.
• Score: 6.965923975005292
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Collaborative competitions have gained popularity in the scientific and technological fields. These competitions involve defining tasks, selecting evaluation scores, and devising result verification methods. In the standard scenario, participants receive a training set and are expected to provide a solution for a held-out dataset kept by organizers. An essential challenge for organizers arises when comparing algorithms' performance, assessing multiple participants, and ranking them. Statistical tools are often used for this purpose; however, traditional statistical methods often fail to capture decisive differences between systems' performance. This manuscript describes an evaluation methodology for statistically analyzing competition results and competition. The methodology is designed to be universally applicable; however, it is illustrated using eight natural language competitions as case studies involving classification and regression problems. The proposed methodology offers several advantages, including off-the-shell comparisons with correction mechanisms and the inclusion of confidence intervals. Furthermore, we introduce metrics that allow organizers to assess the difficulty of competitions. Our analysis shows the potential usefulness of our methodology for effectively evaluating competition results.

Related papers

• Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition [70.60872754129832]
  First NeurIPS competition on unlearning sought to stimulate the development of novel algorithms. Nearly 1,200 teams from across the world participated. We analyze top solutions and delve into discussions on benchmarking unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:58:00Z)
• CompeteSMoE -- Effective Training of Sparse Mixture of Experts via Competition [52.2034494666179]
  Sparse mixture of experts (SMoE) offers an appealing solution to scale up the model complexity beyond the mean of increasing the network's depth or width. We propose a competition mechanism to address this fundamental challenge of representation collapse. By routing inputs only to experts with the highest neural response, we show that, under mild assumptions, competition enjoys the same convergence rate as the optimal estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-04T15:17:09Z)
• Competitions in AI -- Robustly Ranking Solvers Using Statistical Resampling [9.02080113915613]
  We show that rankings resulting from the standard interpretation of competition results can be very sensitive to even minor changes in the benchmark instance set used as the basis for assessment. We introduce a novel approach to statistically meaningful analysis of competition results based on resampling performance data. Our approach produces confidence intervals of competition scores as well as statistically robust solver rankings with bounded error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-09T16:47:04Z)
• Comparison of classifiers in challenge scheme [12.030094148004176]
  This paper analyzes the results of the MeOffendEs@IberLEF 2021 competition. It proposes to make inference through resampling techniques (bootstrap) to support Challenge organizers' decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-16T23:38:34Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• Revisiting Long-tailed Image Classification: Survey and Benchmarks with New Evaluation Metrics [88.39382177059747]
  A corpus of metrics is designed for measuring the accuracy, robustness, and bounds of algorithms for learning with long-tailed distribution. Based on our benchmarks, we re-evaluate the performance of existing methods on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-03T02:40:54Z)
• A portfolio-based analysis method for competition results [0.8680676599607126]
  I will describe a portfolio-based analysis method which can give complementary insights into the performance of participating solvers in a competition. The method is demonstrated on the results of the MiniZinc Challenges and new insights gained from the portfolio viewpoint are presented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-30T20:20:45Z)
• Enhancing Counterfactual Classification via Self-Training [9.484178349784264]
  We propose a self-training algorithm which imputes outcomes with categorical values for finite unseen actions in observational data to simulate a randomized trial through pseudolabeling. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms on both synthetic and real datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-08T18:42:58Z)
• Multi-Stage Decentralized Matching Markets: Uncertain Preferences and Strategic Behaviors [91.3755431537592]
  This article develops a framework for learning optimal strategies in real-world matching markets. We show that there exists a welfare-versus-fairness trade-off that is characterized by the uncertainty level of acceptance. We prove that participants can be better off with multi-stage matching compared to single-stage matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-13T19:25:52Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

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.