The ability to compare the semantic similarity between text corpora is important in a variety of natural language processing applications. However, standard methods for evaluating these metrics have yet to be established. We propose a set of automatic and interpretable measures for assessing the characteristics of corpus-level semantic similarity metrics, allowing sensible comparison of their behavior. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our evaluation measures in capturing fundamental characteristics by evaluating them on a collection of classical and state-of-the-art metrics. Our measures revealed that recently-developed metrics are becoming better in identifying semantic distributional mismatch while classical metrics are more sensitive to perturbations in the surface text levels.
相關內容
A multitude of explainability methods and associated fidelity performance metrics have been proposed to help better understand how modern AI systems make decisions. However, much of the current work has remained theoretical -- without much consideration for the human end-user. In particular, it is not yet known (1) how useful current explainability methods are in practice for more real-world scenarios and (2) how well associated performance metrics accurately predict how much knowledge individual explanations contribute to a human end-user trying to understand the inner-workings of the system. To fill this gap, we conducted psychophysics experiments at scale to evaluate the ability of human participants to leverage representative attribution methods for understanding the behavior of different image classifiers representing three real-world scenarios: identifying bias in an AI system, characterizing the visual strategy it uses for tasks that are too difficult for an untrained non-expert human observer as well as understanding its failure cases. Our results demonstrate that the degree to which individual attribution methods help human participants better understand an AI system varied widely across these scenarios. This suggests a critical need for the field to move past quantitative improvements of current attribution methods towards the development of complementary approaches that provide qualitatively different sources of information to human end-users.
Estimating the Shannon entropy of a discrete distribution from which we have only observed a small sample is challenging. Estimating other information-theoretic metrics, such as the Kullback-Leibler divergence between two sparsely sampled discrete distributions, is even harder. Existing approaches to address these problems have shortcomings: they are biased, heuristic, work only for some distributions, and/or cannot be applied to all information-theoretic metrics. Here, we propose a fast, semi-analytical estimator for sparsely sampled distributions that is efficient, precise, and general. Its derivation is grounded in probabilistic considerations and uses a hierarchical Bayesian approach to extract as much information as possible from the few observations available. Our approach provides estimates of the Shannon entropy with precision at least comparable to the state of the art, and most often better. It can also be used to obtain accurate estimates of any other information-theoretic metric, including the notoriously challenging Kullback-Leibler divergence. Here, again, our approach performs consistently better than existing estimators.
Deep visual models have widespread applications in high-stake domains. Hence, their black-box nature is currently attracting a large interest of the research community. We present the first survey in Explainable AI that focuses on the methods and metrics for interpreting deep visual models. Covering the landmark contributions along the state-of-the-art, we not only provide a taxonomic organization of the existing techniques, but also excavate a range of evaluation metrics and collate them as measures of different properties of model explanations. Along the insightful discussion on the current trends, we also discuss the challenges and future avenues for this research direction.
Pitch and meter are two fundamental music features for symbolic music generation tasks, where researchers usually choose different encoding methods depending on specific goals. However, the advantages and drawbacks of different encoding methods have not been frequently discussed. This paper presents a integrated analysis of the influence of two low-level feature, pitch and meter, on the performance of a token-based sequential music generation model. First, the commonly used MIDI number encoding and a less used class-octave encoding are compared. Second, an dense intra-bar metric grid is imposed to the encoded sequence as auxiliary features. Different complexity and resolutions of the metric grid are compared. For complexity, the single token approach and the multiple token approach are compared; for grid resolution, 0 (ablation), 1 (bar-level), 4 (downbeat-level) 12, (8th-triplet-level) up to 64 (64th-note-grid-level) are compared; for duration resolution, 4, 8, 12 and 16 subdivisions per beat are compared. All different encodings are tested on separately trained Transformer-XL models for a melody generation task. Regarding distribution similarity of several objective evaluation metrics to the test dataset, results suggest that the class-octave encoding significantly outperforms the taken-for-granted MIDI encoding on pitch-related metrics; finer grids and multiple-token grids improve the rhythmic quality, but also suffer from over-fitting at early training stage. Results display a general phenomenon of over-fitting from two aspects, the pitch embedding space and the test loss of the single-token grid encoding. From a practical perspective, we both demonstrate the feasibility and raise the concern of easy over-fitting problem of using smaller networks and lower embedding dimensions on the generation task. The findings can also contribute to futural models in terms of feature engineering.
Semantic parsing is a technique aimed at constructing a structured representation of the meaning of a natural-language question. Recent advancements in few-shot language models trained on code have demonstrated superior performance in generating these representations compared to traditional unimodal language models, which are trained on downstream tasks. Despite these advancements, existing fine-tuned neural semantic parsers are susceptible to adversarial attacks on natural-language inputs. While it has been established that the robustness of smaller semantic parsers can be enhanced through adversarial training, this approach is not feasible for large language models in real-world scenarios, as it requires both substantial computational resources and expensive human annotation on in-domain semantic parsing data. This paper presents the first empirical study on the adversarial robustness of a large prompt-based language model of code, \codex. Our results demonstrate that the state-of-the-art (SOTA) code-language models are vulnerable to carefully crafted adversarial examples. To address this challenge, we propose methods for improving robustness without the need for significant amounts of labeled data or heavy computational resources.
To mitigate gender bias in contextualized language models, different intrinsic mitigation strategies have been proposed, alongside many bias metrics. Considering that the end use of these language models is for downstream tasks like text classification, it is important to understand how these intrinsic bias mitigation strategies actually translate to fairness in downstream tasks and the extent of this. In this work, we design a probe to investigate the effects that some of the major intrinsic gender bias mitigation strategies have on downstream text classification tasks. We discover that instead of resolving gender bias, intrinsic mitigation techniques and metrics are able to hide it in such a way that significant gender information is retained in the embeddings. Furthermore, we show that each mitigation technique is able to hide the bias from some of the intrinsic bias measures but not all, and each intrinsic bias measure can be fooled by some mitigation techniques, but not all. We confirm experimentally, that none of the intrinsic mitigation techniques used without any other fairness intervention is able to consistently impact extrinsic bias. We recommend that intrinsic bias mitigation techniques should be combined with other fairness interventions for downstream tasks.
Household robots operate in the same space for years. Such robots incrementally build dynamic maps that can be used for tasks requiring remote object localization. However, benchmarks in robot learning often test generalization through inference on tasks in unobserved environments. In an observed environment, locating an object is reduced to choosing from among all object proposals in the environment, which may number in the 100,000s. Armed with this intuition, using only a generic vision-language scoring model with minor modifications for 3d encoding and operating in an embodied environment, we demonstrate an absolute performance gain of 9.84% on remote object grounding above state of the art models for REVERIE and of 5.04% on FAO. When allowed to pre-explore an environment, we also exceed the previous state of the art pre-exploration method on REVERIE. Additionally, we demonstrate our model on a real-world TurtleBot platform, highlighting the simplicity and usefulness of the approach. Our analysis outlines a "bag of tricks" essential for accomplishing this task, from utilizing 3d coordinates and context, to generalizing vision-language models to large 3d search spaces.
Numerous types of social biases have been identified in pre-trained language models (PLMs), and various intrinsic bias evaluation measures have been proposed for quantifying those social biases. Prior works have relied on human annotated examples to compare existing intrinsic bias evaluation measures. However, this approach is not easily adaptable to different languages nor amenable to large scale evaluations due to the costs and difficulties when recruiting human annotators. To overcome this limitation, we propose a method to compare intrinsic gender bias evaluation measures without relying on human-annotated examples. Specifically, we create multiple bias-controlled versions of PLMs using varying amounts of male vs. female gendered sentences, mined automatically from an unannotated corpus using gender-related word lists. Next, each bias-controlled PLM is evaluated using an intrinsic bias evaluation measure, and the rank correlation between the computed bias scores and the gender proportions used to fine-tune the PLMs is computed. Experiments on multiple corpora and PLMs repeatedly show that the correlations reported by our proposed method that does not require human annotated examples are comparable to those computed using human annotated examples in prior work.
The DARPA Lifelong Learning Machines (L2M) program seeks to yield advances in artificial intelligence (AI) systems so that they are capable of learning (and improving) continuously, leveraging data on one task to improve performance on another, and doing so in a computationally sustainable way. Performers on this program developed systems capable of performing a diverse range of functions, including autonomous driving, real-time strategy, and drone simulation. These systems featured a diverse range of characteristics (e.g., task structure, lifetime duration), and an immediate challenge faced by the program's testing and evaluation team was measuring system performance across these different settings. This document, developed in close collaboration with DARPA and the program performers, outlines a formalism for constructing and characterizing the performance of agents performing lifelong learning scenarios.
User engagement is a critical metric for evaluating the quality of open-domain dialogue systems. Prior work has focused on conversation-level engagement by using heuristically constructed features such as the number of turns and the total time of the conversation. In this paper, we investigate the possibility and efficacy of estimating utterance-level engagement and define a novel metric, {\em predictive engagement}, for automatic evaluation of open-domain dialogue systems. Our experiments demonstrate that (1) human annotators have high agreement on assessing utterance-level engagement scores; (2) conversation-level engagement scores can be predicted from properly aggregated utterance-level engagement scores. Furthermore, we show that the utterance-level engagement scores can be learned from data. These scores can improve automatic evaluation metrics for open-domain dialogue systems, as shown by correlation with human judgements. This suggests that predictive engagement can be used as a real-time feedback for training better dialogue models.
小貼士
登錄享
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191