Transformers with Learnable Activation Functions

Activation functions can have a significant impact on reducing the topological complexity of input data and therefore improve the performance of the model. Selecting a suitable activation function is an essential step in neural model design. However, the choice of activation function is seldom discussed or explored in Transformer-based language models. Their activation functions are chosen beforehand and then remain fixed from pre-training to fine-tuning. As a result, the inductive biases they imposed on models cannot be adjusted during this long life cycle. Moreover, subsequently developed models (e.g., RoBERTa, BART, and GPT-3) often follow up prior work (e.g., BERT) to use the same activation function without justification. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of using Rational Activation Function (RAF), a learnable activation function, in the Transformer architecture. In contrast to conventional, predefined activation functions, RAFs can adaptively learn optimal activation functions during training according to input data. Our experiments show the RAF-based Transformer (RAFT) achieves a lower validation perplexity than a vanilla BERT with the GELU function. We further evaluate RAFT on downstream tasks in low- and full-data settings. Our results show that RAFT outperforms the counterpart model across the majority of tasks and settings. For instance, RAFT outperforms vanilla BERT on the GLUE benchmark by 5.71 points on average in low-data scenario (where 100 training examples are available) and by 2.05 points on SQuAD in full-data setting. Analysis of the shapes of learned RAFs further unveils that they substantially vary between different layers of the pre-trained model and mostly look very different from conventional activation functions. RAFT opens a new research direction for analyzing and interpreting pre-trained models according to the learned activation functions.

UKP-SQuARE v2 Explainability and Adversarial Attacks for Trustworthy QA

Question Answering (QA) systems are increasingly deployed in applications where they support real-world decisions. However, state-of-the-art models rely on deep neural networks, which are difficult to interpret by humans. Inherently interpretable models or post hoc explainability methods can help users to comprehend how a model arrives at its prediction and, if successful, increase their trust in the system. Furthermore, researchers can leverage these insights to develop new methods that are more accurate and less biased. In this paper, we introduce SQuARE v2, the new version of SQuARE, to provide an explainability infrastructure for comparing models based on methods such as saliency maps and graph-based explanations. While saliency maps are useful to inspect the importance of each input token for the model's prediction, graph-based explanations from external Knowledge Graphs enable the users to verify the reasoning behind the model prediction. In addition, we provide multiple adversarial attacks to compare the robustness of QA models. With these explainability methods and adversarial attacks, we aim to ease the research on trustworthy QA models. SQuARE is available on https://square.ukp-lab.de.

TexPrax: A Messaging Application for Ethical, Real-time Data Collection and Annotation

Collecting and annotating task-oriented dialog data is difficult, especially for highly specific domains that require expert knowledge. At the same time, informal communication channels such as instant messengers are increasingly being used at work. This has led to a lot of work-relevant information that is disseminated through those channels and needs to be post-processed manually by the employees. To alleviate this problem, we present TexPrax, a messaging system to collect and annotate problems, causes, and solutions that occur in work-related chats. TexPrax uses a chatbot to directly engage the employees to provide lightweight annotations on their conversation and ease their documentation work. To comply with data privacy and security regulations, we use an end-to-end message encryption and give our users full control over their data which has various advantages over conventional annotation tools. We evaluate TexPrax in a user-study with German factory employees who ask their colleagues for solutions on problems that arise during their daily work. Overall, we collect 201 task-oriented German dialogues containing 1,027 sentences with sentence-level expert annotations. Our data analysis also reveals that real-world conversations frequently contain instances with code-switching, varying abbreviations for the same entity, and dialects which NLP systems should be able to handle.

Mining Legal Arguments in Court Decisions

Identifying, classifying, and analyzing arguments in legal discourse has been a prominent area of research since the inception of the argument mining field. However, there has been a major discrepancy between the way natural language processing (NLP) researchers model and annotate arguments in court decisions and the way legal experts understand and analyze legal argumentation. While computational approaches typically simplify arguments into generic premises and claims, arguments in legal research usually exhibit a rich typology that is important for gaining insights into the particular case and applications of law in general. We address this problem and make several substantial contributions to move the field forward. First, we design a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that is deeply rooted in the theory and practice of legal argumentation research. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions (2.3M tokens and 15k annotated argument spans). Finally, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain and provide a thorough expert-based evaluation. All datasets and source codes are available under open lincenses at https://github.com/trusthlt/mining-legal-arguments.

Annotation Error Detection: Analyzing the Past and Present for a More Coherent Future

Annotated data is an essential ingredient in natural language processing for training and evaluating machine learning models. It is therefore very desirable for the annotations to be of high quality. Recent work, however, has shown that several popular datasets contain a surprising amount of annotation errors or inconsistencies. To alleviate this issue, many methods for annotation error detection have been devised over the years. While researchers show that their approaches work well on their newly introduced datasets, they rarely compare their methods to previous work or on the same datasets. This raises strong concerns on methods' general performance and makes it difficult to asses their strengths and weaknesses. We therefore reimplement 18 methods for detecting potential annotation errors and evaluate them on 9 English datasets for text classification as well as token and span labeling. In addition, we define a uniform evaluation setup including a new formalization of the annotation error detection task, evaluation protocol and general best practices. To facilitate future research and reproducibility, we release our datasets and implementations in an easy-to-use and open source software package.

On the Effect of Sample and Topic Sizes for Argument Mining Datasets

The task of Argument Mining, that is extracting argumentative sentences for a specific topic from large document sources, is an inherently difficult task for machine learning models and humans alike, as large datasets are rare and recognition of argumentative sentences requires expert knowledge. The task becomes even more difficult when it also involves stance detection of retrieved arguments. Recent datasets for the task tend to grow evermore large and hence more costly. In this work, we inquire whether it is necessary for acceptable performance of argument mining to have datasets growing in size or, if not, how smaller datasets have to be composed for optimal performance. We also publish a newly created dataset for future benchmarking.

Improving the Numerical Reasoning Skills of Pretrained Language Models

State-of-the-art pretrained language models tend to perform below their capabilities when applied out-of-the-box on tasks that require reasoning over numbers. Recent work sees two main reasons for this: (1) popular tokenisation algorithms are optimized for common words, and therefore have limited expressiveness for numbers, and (2) common pretraining objectives do not target numerical reasoning or understanding numbers at all. Recent approaches usually address them separately and mostly by proposing architectural changes or pretraining models from scratch. In this paper, we propose a new extended pretraining approach called reasoning-aware pretraining to jointly address both shortcomings without requiring architectural changes or pretraining from scratch. Using contrastive learning, our approach incorporates an alternative number representation into an already pretrained model, while improving its numerical reasoning skills by training on a novel pretraining objective called inferable number prediction task. We evaluate our approach on three different tasks that require numerical reasoning, including (a) reading comprehension in the DROP dataset, (b) inference-on-tables in the InfoTabs dataset, and (c) table-to-text generation in WikiBio and SciGen datasets. Our results on DROP and InfoTabs show that our approach improves the accuracy by 9.6 and 33.9 points on these datasets, respectively. Our human evaluation on SciGen and WikiBio shows that our approach improves the factual correctness on all datasets.

Falsesum: Generating Document-level NLI Examples for Recognizing Factual Inconsistency in Summarization

Neural abstractive summarization models are prone to generate summaries which are factually inconsistent with their source documents. Previous work has introduced the task of recognizing such factual inconsistency as a downstream application of natural language inference (NLI). However, state-of-the-art NLI models perform poorly in this context due to their inability to generalize to the target task. In this work, we show that NLI models can be effective for this task when the training data is augmented with high-quality task-oriented examples. We introduce Falsesum, a data generation pipeline leveraging a controllable text generation model to perturb human-annotated summaries, introducing varying types of factual inconsistencies. Unlike previously introduced document-level NLI datasets, our generated dataset contains examples that are diverse and inconsistent yet plausible. We show that models trained on a Falsesum-augmented NLI dataset improve the state-of-the-art performance across four benchmarks for detecting factual inconsistency in summarization. The code to obtain the dataset is available online at https://github.com/joshbambrick/Falsesum

Adaptable Adapters

State-of-the-art pretrained NLP models contain a hundred million to trillion parameters. Adapters provide a parameter-efficient alternative for the full finetuning in which we can only finetune lightweight neural network layers on top of pretrained weights. Adapter layers are initialized randomly. However, existing work uses the same adapter architecture -- i.e., the same adapter layer on top of each layer of the pretrained model -- for every dataset, regardless of the properties of the dataset or the amount of available training data. In this work, we introduce adaptable adapters that contain (1) learning different activation functions for different layers and different input data, and (2) a learnable switch to select and only use the beneficial adapter layers. We show that adaptable adapters achieve on-par performances with the standard adapter architecture while using a considerably smaller number of adapter layers. In addition, we show that the selected adapter architecture by adaptable adapters transfers well across different data settings and similar tasks. We propose to use adaptable adapters for designing efficient and effective adapter architectures. The resulting adapters (a) contain about 50% of the learning parameters of the standard adapter and are therefore more efficient at training and inference, and require less storage space, and (b) achieve considerably higher performances in low-data settings.

Revise and Resubmit: An Intertextual Model of Text-based Collaboration in Peer Review

Peer review is a key component of the publishing process in most fields of science. The increasing submission rates put a strain on reviewing quality and efficiency, motivating the development of applications to support the reviewing and editorial work. While existing NLP studies focus on the analysis of individual texts, editorial assistance often requires modeling interactions between pairs of texts -- yet general frameworks and datasets to support this scenario are missing. Relationships between texts are the core object of the intertextuality theory -- a family of approaches in literary studies not yet operationalized in NLP. Inspired by prior theoretical work, we propose the first intertextual model of text-based collaboration, which encompasses three major phenomena that make up a full iteration of the review-revise-and-resubmit cycle: pragmatic tagging, linking and long-document version alignment. While peer review is used across the fields of science and publication formats, existing datasets solely focus on conference-style review in computer science. Addressing this, we instantiate our proposed model in the first annotated multi-domain corpus in journal-style post-publication open peer review, and provide detailed insights into the practical aspects of intertextual annotation. Our resource is a major step towards multi-domain, fine-grained applications of NLP in editorial support for peer review, and our intertextual framework paves the path for general-purpose modeling of text-based collaboration.