Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLP

We introduce Dynabench, an open-source platform for dynamic dataset creation and model benchmarking. Dynabench runs in a web browser and supports human-and-model-in-the-loop dataset creation: annotators seek to create examples that a target model will misclassify, but that another person will not. In this paper, we argue that Dynabench addresses a critical need in our community: contemporary models quickly achieve outstanding performance on benchmark tasks but nonetheless fail on simple challenge examples and falter in real-world scenarios. With Dynabench, dataset creation, model development, and model assessment can directly inform each other, leading to more robust and informative benchmarks. We report on four initial NLP tasks, illustrating these concepts and highlighting the promise of the platform, and address potential objections to dynamic benchmarking as a new standard for the field.

Unnatural Language Inference

Natural Language Understanding has witnessed a watershed moment with the introduction of large pre-trained Transformer networks. These models achieve state-of-the-art on various tasks, notably including Natural Language Inference (NLI). Many studies have shown that the large representation space imbibed by the models encodes some syntactic and semantic information. However, to really "know syntax", a model must recognize when its input violates syntactic rules and calculate inferences accordingly. In this work, we find that state-of-the-art NLI models, such as RoBERTa and BART are invariant to, and sometimes even perform better on, examples with randomly reordered words. With iterative search, we are able to construct randomized versions of NLI test sets, which contain permuted hypothesis-premise pairs with the same words as the original, yet are classified with perfect accuracy by large pre-trained models, as well as pre-Transformer state-of-the-art encoders. We find the issue to be language and model invariant, and hence investigate the root cause. To partially alleviate this effect, we propose a simple training methodology. Our findings call into question the idea that our natural language understanding models, and the tasks used for measuring their progress, genuinely require a human-like understanding of syntax.

To what extent do human explanations of model behavior align with actual model behavior?

Given the increasingly prominent role NLP models (will) play in our lives, it is important to evaluate models on their alignment with human expectations of how models behave. Using Natural Language Inference (NLI) as a case study, we investigated the extent to which human-generated explanations of models' inference decisions align with how models actually make these decisions. More specifically, we defined two alignment metrics that quantify how well natural language human explanations align with model sensitivity to input words, as measured by integrated gradients. Then, we evaluated six different transformer models (the base and large versions of BERT, RoBERTa and ELECTRA), and found that the BERT-base model has the highest alignment with human-generated explanations, for both alignment metrics. Additionally, the base versions of the models we surveyed tended to have higher alignment with human-generated explanations than their larger counterparts, suggesting that increasing the number model parameters could result in worse alignment with human explanations. Finally, we find that a model's alignment with human explanations is not predicted by the model's accuracy on NLI, suggesting that accuracy and alignment are orthogonal, and both are important ways to evaluate models.

ANLIzing the Adversarial Natural Language Inference Dataset

We perform an in-depth error analysis of Adversarial NLI (ANLI), a recently introduced large-scale human-and-model-in-the-loop natural language inference dataset collected over multiple rounds. We propose a fine-grained annotation scheme of the different aspects of inference that are responsible for the gold classification labels, and use it to hand-code all three of the ANLI development sets. We use these annotations to answer a variety of interesting questions: which inference types are most common, which models have the highest performance on each reasoning type, and which types are the most challenging for state of-the-art models? We hope that our annotations will enable more fine-grained evaluation of models trained on ANLI, provide us with a deeper understanding of where models fail and succeed, and help us determine how to train better models in future.

Intrinsic Probing through Dimension Selection

Most modern NLP systems make use of pre-trained contextual representations that attain astonishingly high performance on a variety of tasks. Such high performance should not be possible unless some form of linguistic structure inheres in these representations, and a wealth of research has sprung up on probing for it. In this paper, we draw a distinction between intrinsic probing, which examines how linguistic information is structured within a representation, and the extrinsic probing popular in prior work, which only argues for the presence of such information by showing that it can be successfully extracted. To enable intrinsic probing, we propose a novel framework based on a decomposable multivariate Gaussian probe that allows us to determine whether the linguistic information in word embeddings is dispersed or focal. We then probe fastText and BERT for various morphosyntactic attributes across 36 languages. We find that most attributes are reliably encoded by only a few neurons, with fastText concentrating its linguistic structure more than BERT.

Pareto Probing: Trading Off Accuracy for Complexity

The question of how to probe contextual word representations in a way that is principled and useful has seen significant recent attention. In our contribution to this discussion, we argue, first, for a probe metric that reflects the trade-off between probe complexity and performance: the Pareto hypervolume. To measure complexity, we present a number of parametric and non-parametric metrics. Our experiments with such metrics show that probe's performance curves often fail to align with widely accepted rankings between language representations (with, e.g., non-contextual representations outperforming contextual ones). These results lead us to argue, second, that common simplistic probe tasks such as POS labeling and dependency arc labeling, are inadequate to evaluate the properties encoded in contextual word representations. We propose full dependency parsing as an example probe task, and demonstrate it with the Pareto hypervolume. In support of our arguments, the results of this illustrative experiment conform closer to accepted rankings among contextual word representations.

SIGMORPHON 2020 Shared Task 0: Typologically Diverse Morphological Inflection

A broad goal in natural language processing (NLP) is to develop a system that has the capacity to process any natural language. Most systems, however, are developed using data from just one language such as English. The SIGMORPHON 2020 shared task on morphological reinflection aims to investigate systems' ability to generalize across typologically distinct languages, many of which are low resource. Systems were developed using data from 45 languages and just 5 language families, fine-tuned with data from an additional 45 languages and 10 language families (13 in total), and evaluated on all 90 languages. A total of 22 systems (19 neural) from 10 teams were submitted to the task. All four winning systems were neural (two monolingual transformers and two massively multilingual RNN-based models with gated attention). Most teams demonstrate utility of data hallucination and augmentation, ensembles, and multilingual training for low-resource languages. Non-neural learners and manually designed grammars showed competitive and even superior performance on some languages (such as Ingrian, Tajik, Tagalog, Zarma, Lingala), especially with very limited data. Some language families (Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Turkic) were relatively easy for most systems and achieved over 90% mean accuracy while others were more challenging.

Predicting Declension Class from Form and Meaning

The noun lexica of many natural languages are divided into several declension classes with characteristic morphological properties. Class membership is far from deterministic, but the phonological form of a noun and/or its meaning can often provide imperfect clues. Here, we investigate the strength of those clues. More specifically, we operationalize this by measuring how much information, in bits, we can glean about declension class from knowing the form and/or meaning of nouns. We know that form and meaning are often also indicative of grammatical gender---which, as we quantitatively verify, can itself share information with declension class---so we also control for gender. We find for two Indo-European languages (Czech and German) that form and meaning respectively share significant amounts of information with class (and contribute additional information above and beyond gender). The three-way interaction between class, form, and meaning (given gender) is also significant. Our study is important for two reasons: First, we introduce a new method that provides additional quantitative support for a classic linguistic finding that form and meaning are relevant for the classification of nouns into declensions. Secondly, we show not only that individual declensions classes vary in the strength of their clues within a language, but also that these variations themselves vary across languages.

A Tale of a Probe and a Parser

Measuring what linguistic information is encoded in neural models of language has become popular in NLP. Researchers approach this enterprise by training "probes" - supervised models designed to extract linguistic structure from another model's output. One such probe is the structural probe (Hewitt and Manning, 2019), designed to quantify the extent to which syntactic information is encoded in contextualised word representations. The structural probe has a novel design, unattested in the parsing literature, the precise benefit of which is not immediately obvious. To explore whether syntactic probes would do better to make use of existing techniques, we compare the structural probe to a more traditional parser with an identical lightweight parameterisation. The parser outperforms structural probe on UUAS in seven of nine analysed languages, often by a substantial amount (e.g. by 11.1 points in English). Under a second less common metric, however, there is the opposite trend - the structural probe outperforms the parser. This begs the question: which metric should we prefer?