Human-annotated labels and explanations are critical for training explainable NLP models. However, unlike human-annotated labels whose quality is easier to calibrate (e.g., with a majority vote), human-crafted free-form explanations can be quite subjective, as some recent works have discussed. Before blindly using them as ground truth to train ML models, a vital question needs to be asked: How do we evaluate a human-annotated explanation's quality? In this paper, we build on the view that the quality of a human-annotated explanation can be measured based on its helpfulness (or impairment) to the ML models' performance for the desired NLP tasks for which the annotations were collected. In comparison to the commonly used Simulatability score, we define a new metric that can take into consideration the helpfulness of an explanation for model performance at both fine-tuning and inference. With the help of a unified dataset format, we evaluated the proposed metric on five datasets (e.g., e-SNLI) against two model architectures (T5 and BART), and the results show that our proposed metric can objectively evaluate the quality of human-annotated explanations, while Simulatability falls short.
相關內容
ACM/IEEE第23屆模型驅動工程語言和系統國際會議，是模型驅動軟件和系統工程的首要會議系列，由ACM-SIGSOFT和IEEE-TCSE支持組織。自1998年以來，模型涵蓋了建模的各個方面，從語言和方法到工具和應用程序。模特的參加者來自不同的背景，包括研究人員、學者、工程師和工業專業人士。MODELS 2019是一個論壇，參與者可以圍繞建模和模型驅動的軟件和系統交流前沿研究成果和創新實踐經驗。今年的版本將為建模社區提供進一步推進建模基礎的機會，并在網絡物理系統、嵌入式系統、社會技術系統、云計算、大數據、機器學習、安全、開源等新興領域提出建模的創新應用以及可持續性。
官網鏈接： ·
MoDELS
·
Performer
·
模型評估
·
知識 (knowledge)
·
Pre-trained language models have recently emerged as a powerful tool for fine-tuning a variety of language tasks. Ideally, when models are pre-trained on large amount of data, they are expected to gain implicit knowledge. In this paper, we investigate the ability of pre-trained language models to generalize to different non-language tasks. In particular, we test them on tasks from different domains such as computer vision, reasoning on hierarchical data, and protein fold prediction. The four pre-trained models that we used, T5, BART, BERT, and GPT-2 achieve outstanding results. They all have similar performance and they outperform transformers that are trained from scratch by a large margin. For instance, pre-trained language models perform better on the Listops dataset, with an average accuracy of 58.7\%, compared to transformers trained from scratch, which have an average accuracy of 29.0\%. The significant improvement demonstrated across three types of datasets suggests that pre-training on language helps the models to acquire general knowledge, bringing us a step closer to general AI. We also showed that reducing the number of parameters in pre-trained language models does not have a great impact as the performance drops slightly when using T5-Small instead of T5-Base. In fact, when using only 2\% of the parameters, we achieved a great improvement compared to training from scratch. Finally, in contrast to prior work, we find out that using pre-trained embeddings for the input layer is necessary to achieve the desired results.
Recent research has focused on using large language models (LLMs) to generate explanations for hate speech through fine-tuning or prompting. Despite the growing interest in this area, these generated explanations' effectiveness and potential limitations remain poorly understood. A key concern is that these explanations, generated by LLMs, may lead to erroneous judgments about the nature of flagged content by both users and content moderators. For instance, an LLM-generated explanation might inaccurately convince a content moderator that a benign piece of content is hateful. In light of this, we propose an analytical framework for examining hate speech explanations and conducted an extensive survey on evaluating such explanations. Specifically, we prompted GPT-3 to generate explanations for both hateful and non-hateful content, and a survey was conducted with 2,400 unique respondents to evaluate the generated explanations. Our findings reveal that (1) human evaluators rated the GPT-generated explanations as high quality in terms of linguistic fluency, informativeness, persuasiveness, and logical soundness, (2) the persuasive nature of these explanations, however, varied depending on the prompting strategy employed, and (3) this persuasiveness may result in incorrect judgments about the hatefulness of the content. Our study underscores the need for caution in applying LLM-generated explanations for content moderation. Code and results are available at //github.com/Social-AI-Studio/GPT3-HateEval.
Document-level relation extraction (DocRE) attracts more research interest recently. While models achieve consistent performance gains in DocRE, their underlying decision rules are still understudied: Do they make the right predictions according to rationales? In this paper, we take the first step toward answering this question and then introduce a new perspective on comprehensively evaluating a model. Specifically, we first conduct annotations to provide the rationales considered by humans in DocRE. Then, we conduct investigations and reveal the fact that: In contrast to humans, the representative state-of-the-art (SOTA) models in DocRE exhibit different decision rules. Through our proposed RE-specific attacks, we next demonstrate that the significant discrepancy in decision rules between models and humans severely damages the robustness of models and renders them inapplicable to real-world RE scenarios. After that, we introduce mean average precision (MAP) to evaluate the understanding and reasoning capabilities of models. According to the extensive experimental results, we finally appeal to future work to consider evaluating both performance and the understanding ability of models for the development of their applications. We make our annotations and code publicly available.
Classical planning systems have shown great advances in utilizing rule-based human knowledge to compute accurate plans for service robots, but they face challenges due to the strong assumptions of perfect perception and action executions. To tackle these challenges, one solution is to connect the symbolic states and actions generated by classical planners to the robot's sensory observations, thus closing the perception-action loop. This research proposes a visually-grounded planning framework, named TPVQA, which leverages Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to detect action failures and verify action affordances towards enabling successful plan execution. Results from quantitative experiments show that TPVQA surpasses competitive baselines from previous studies in task completion rate.
If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved great success in various natural language tasks. It has aroused much interest in evaluating the specific reasoning capability of LLMs, such as multilingual reasoning and mathematical reasoning. However, as one of the key reasoning perspectives, logical reasoning capability has not yet been thoroughly evaluated. In this work, we aim to bridge those gaps and provide comprehensive evaluations. Firstly, to offer systematic evaluations, this paper selects fifteen typical logical reasoning datasets and organizes them into deductive, inductive, abductive and mixed-form reasoning settings. Considering the comprehensiveness of evaluations, we include three representative LLMs (i.e., text-davinci-003, ChatGPT and BARD) and evaluate them on all selected datasets under zero-shot, one-shot and three-shot settings. Secondly, different from previous evaluations relying only on simple metrics (e.g., accuracy), we propose fine-level evaluations from objective and subjective manners, covering both answers and explanations. Also, to uncover the logical flaws of LLMs, bad cases will be attributed to five error types from two dimensions. Thirdly, to avoid the influences of knowledge bias and purely focus on benchmarking the logical reasoning capability of LLMs, we propose a new dataset with neutral content. It contains 3K samples and covers deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning settings. Based on the in-depth evaluations, this paper finally concludes the ability maps of logical reasoning capability from six dimensions (i.e., correct, rigorous, self-aware, active, oriented and no hallucination). It reflects the pros and cons of LLMs and gives guiding directions for future works.
Enhancing Activity Prediction Models in Drug Discovery with the Ability to Understand Human Language
Activity and property prediction models are the central workhorses in drug discovery and materials sciences, but currently they have to be trained or fine-tuned for new tasks. Without training or fine-tuning, scientific language models could be used for such low-data tasks through their announced zero- and few-shot capabilities. However, their predictive quality at activity prediction is lacking. In this work, we envision a novel type of activity prediction model that is able to adapt to new prediction tasks at inference time, via understanding textual information describing the task. To this end, we propose a new architecture with separate modules for chemical and natural language inputs, and a contrastive pre-training objective on data from large biochemical databases. In extensive experiments, we show that our method CLAMP yields improved predictive performance on few-shot learning benchmarks and zero-shot problems in drug discovery. We attribute the advances of our method to the modularized architecture and to our pre-training objective.
Recommendation systems have become popular and effective tools to help users discover their interesting items by modeling the user preference and item property based on implicit interactions (e.g., purchasing and clicking). Humans perceive the world by processing the modality signals (e.g., audio, text and image), which inspired researchers to build a recommender system that can understand and interpret data from different modalities. Those models could capture the hidden relations between different modalities and possibly recover the complementary information which can not be captured by a uni-modal approach and implicit interactions. The goal of this survey is to provide a comprehensive review of the recent research efforts on the multimodal recommendation. Specifically, it shows a clear pipeline with commonly used techniques in each step and classifies the models by the methods used. Additionally, a code framework has been designed that helps researchers new in this area to understand the principles and techniques, and easily runs the SOTA models. Our framework is located at: //github.com/enoche/MMRec
In recent years, Graph Neural Networks have reported outstanding performance in tasks like community detection, molecule classification and link prediction. However, the black-box nature of these models prevents their application in domains like health and finance, where understanding the models' decisions is essential. Counterfactual Explanations (CE) provide these understandings through examples. Moreover, the literature on CE is flourishing with novel explanation methods which are tailored to graph learning. In this survey, we analyse the existing Graph Counterfactual Explanation methods, by providing the reader with an organisation of the literature according to a uniform formal notation for definitions, datasets, and metrics, thus, simplifying potential comparisons w.r.t to the method advantages and disadvantages. We discussed seven methods and sixteen synthetic and real datasets providing details on the possible generation strategies. We highlight the most common evaluation strategies and formalise nine of the metrics used in the literature. We first introduce the evaluation framework GRETEL and how it is possible to extend and use it while providing a further dimension of comparison encompassing reproducibility aspects. Finally, we provide a discussion on how counterfactual explanation interplays with privacy and fairness, before delving into open challenges and future works.
In the past few years, the emergence of pre-training models has brought uni-modal fields such as computer vision (CV) and natural language processing (NLP) to a new era. Substantial works have shown they are beneficial for downstream uni-modal tasks and avoid training a new model from scratch. So can such pre-trained models be applied to multi-modal tasks? Researchers have explored this problem and made significant progress. This paper surveys recent advances and new frontiers in vision-language pre-training (VLP), including image-text and video-text pre-training. To give readers a better overall grasp of VLP, we first review its recent advances from five aspects: feature extraction, model architecture, pre-training objectives, pre-training datasets, and downstream tasks. Then, we summarize the specific VLP models in detail. Finally, we discuss the new frontiers in VLP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first survey on VLP. We hope that this survey can shed light on future research in the VLP field.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191