Data-Efficient Finetuning Using Cross-Task Nearest Neighbors

Language models trained on massive prompted multitask datasets like T0 (Sanh et al., 2021) or FLAN (Wei et al., 2021a) can generalize to tasks unseen during training. We show that training on a carefully chosen subset of instances can outperform training on all available data on a variety of datasets. We assume access to a small number (250--1000) of unlabeled target task instances, select their nearest neighbors from a pool of multitask data, and use the retrieved data to train target task-specific models. Our method is more data-efficient than training a single multitask model, while still outperforming it by large margins. We evaluate across a diverse set of tasks not in the multitask pool we retrieve from, including those used to evaluate T0 and additional complex tasks including legal and scientific document QA. We retrieve small subsets of P3 (the collection of prompted datasets from which T0's training data was sampled) and finetune T5 models that outperform the 3-billion parameter variant of T0 (T0-3B) by 3--30% on 12 out of 14 evaluation datasets while using at most 2% of the data used to train T0-3B. These models also provide a better initialization than T0-3B for few-shot finetuning on target-task data, as shown by a 2--23% relative improvement over few-shot finetuned T0-3B models on 8 datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/allenai/data-efficient-finetuning.

Generating Data to Mitigate Spurious Correlations in Natural Language Inference Datasets

Natural language processing models often exploit spurious correlations between task-independent features and labels in datasets to perform well only within the distributions they are trained on, while not generalising to different task distributions. We propose to tackle this problem by generating a debiased version of a dataset, which can then be used to train a debiased, off-the-shelf model, by simply replacing its training data. Our approach consists of 1) a method for training data generators to generate high-quality, label-consistent data samples; and 2) a filtering mechanism for removing data points that contribute to spurious correlations, measured in terms of z-statistics. We generate debiased versions of the SNLI and MNLI datasets, and we evaluate on a large suite of debiased, out-of-distribution, and adversarial test sets. Results show that models trained on our debiased datasets generalise better than those trained on the original datasets in all settings. On the majority of the datasets, our method outperforms or performs comparably to previous state-of-the-art debiasing strategies, and when combined with an orthogonal technique, product-of-experts, it improves further and outperforms previous best results of SNLI-hard and MNLI-hard.

A Dataset of Information-Seeking Questions and Answers Anchored in Research Papers

Readers of academic research papers often read with the goal of answering specific questions. Question Answering systems that can answer those questions can make consumption of the content much more efficient. However, building such tools requires data that reflect the difficulty of the task arising from complex reasoning about claims made in multiple parts of a paper. In contrast, existing information-seeking question answering datasets usually contain questions about generic factoid-type information. We therefore present QASPER, a dataset of 5,049 questions over 1,585 Natural Language Processing papers. Each question is written by an NLP practitioner who read only the title and abstract of the corresponding paper, and the question seeks information present in the full text. The questions are then answered by a separate set of NLP practitioners who also provide supporting evidence to answers. We find that existing models that do well on other QA tasks do not perform well on answering these questions, underperforming humans by at least 27 F1 points when answering them from entire papers, motivating further research in document-grounded, information-seeking QA, which our dataset is designed to facilitate.

Learning with Instance Bundles for Reading Comprehension

When training most modern reading comprehension models, all the questions associated with a context are treated as being independent from each other. However, closely related questions and their corresponding answers are not independent, and leveraging these relationships could provide a strong supervision signal to a model. Drawing on ideas from contrastive estimation, we introduce several new supervision techniques that compare question-answer scores across multiple related instances. Specifically, we normalize these scores across various neighborhoods of closely contrasting questions and/or answers, adding another cross entropy loss term that is used in addition to traditional maximum likelihood estimation. Our techniques require bundles of related question-answer pairs, which we can either mine from within existing data or create using various automated heuristics. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of training with instance bundles on two datasets -- HotpotQA and ROPES -- showing up to 11% absolute gains in accuracy.

Mitigating False-Negative Contexts in Multi-document QuestionAnswering with Retrieval Marginalization

Question Answering (QA) tasks requiring information from multiple documents often rely on a retrieval model to identify relevant information from which the reasoning model can derive an answer. The retrieval model is typically trained to maximize the likelihood of the labeled supporting evidence. However, when retrieving from large text corpora such as Wikipedia, the correct answer can often be obtained from multiple evidence candidates, not all of them labeled as positive, thus rendering the training signal weak and noisy. The problem is exacerbated when the questions are unanswerable or the answers are boolean, since the models cannot rely on lexical overlap to map answers to supporting evidences. We develop a new parameterization of set-valued retrieval that properly handles unanswerable queries, and we show that marginalizing over this set during training allows a model to mitigate false negatives in annotated supporting evidences. We test our method with two multi-document QA datasets, IIRC and HotpotQA. On IIRC, we show that joint modeling with marginalization on alternative contexts improves model performance by 5.5 F1 points and achieves a new state-of-the-art performance of 50.6 F1. We also show that marginalization results in 0.9 to 1.6 QA F1 improvement on HotpotQA in various settings.

IIRC: A Dataset of Incomplete Information Reading Comprehension Questions

Humans often have to read multiple documents to address their information needs. However, most existing reading comprehension (RC) tasks only focus on questions for which the contexts provide all the information required to answer them, thus not evaluating a system's performance at identifying a potential lack of sufficient information and locating sources for that information. To fill this gap, we present a dataset, IIRC, with more than 13K questions over paragraphs from English Wikipedia that provide only partial information to answer them, with the missing information occurring in one or more linked documents. The questions were written by crowd workers who did not have access to any of the linked documents, leading to questions that have little lexical overlap with the contexts where the answers appear. This process also gave many questions without answers, and those that require discrete reasoning, increasing the difficulty of the task. We follow recent modeling work on various reading comprehension datasets to construct a baseline model for this dataset, finding that it achieves 31.1% F1 on this task, while estimated human performance is 88.4%. The dataset, code for the baseline system, and a leaderboard can be found at https://allennlp.org/iirc.

Evaluating NLP Models via Contrast Sets

Standard test sets for supervised learning evaluate in-distribution generalization. Unfortunately, when a dataset has systematic gaps (e.g., annotation artifacts), these evaluations are misleading: a model can learn simple decision rules that perform well on the test set but do not capture a dataset's intended capabilities. We propose a new annotation paradigm for NLP that helps to close systematic gaps in the test data. In particular, after a dataset is constructed, we recommend that the dataset authors manually perturb the test instances in small but meaningful ways that (typically) change the gold label, creating contrast sets. Contrast sets provide a local view of a model's decision boundary, which can be used to more accurately evaluate a model's true linguistic capabilities. We demonstrate the efficacy of contrast sets by creating them for 10 diverse NLP datasets (e.g., DROP reading comprehension, UD parsing, IMDb sentiment analysis). Although our contrast sets are not explicitly adversarial, model performance is significantly lower on them than on the original test sets---up to 25\% in some cases. We release our contrast sets as new evaluation benchmarks and encourage future dataset construction efforts to follow similar annotation processes.

Quoref: A Reading Comprehension Dataset with Questions Requiring Coreferential Reasoning

Machine comprehension of texts longer than a single sentence often requires coreference resolution. However, most current reading comprehension benchmarks do not contain complex coreferential phenomena and hence fail to evaluate the ability of models to resolve coreference. We present a new crowdsourced dataset containing more than 24K span-selection questions that require resolving coreference among entities in over 4.7K English paragraphs from Wikipedia. Obtaining questions focused on such phenomena is challenging, because it is hard to avoid lexical cues that shortcut complex reasoning. We deal with this issue by using a strong baseline model as an adversary in the crowdsourcing loop, which helps crowdworkers avoid writing questions with exploitable surface cues. We show that state-of-the-art reading comprehension models perform significantly worse than humans on this benchmark---the best model performance is 70.5 F1, while the estimated human performance is 93.4 F1.

DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs

Reading comprehension has recently seen rapid progress, with systems matching humans on the most popular datasets for the task. However, a large body of work has highlighted the brittleness of these systems, showing that there is much work left to be done. We introduce a new English reading comprehension benchmark, DROP, which requires Discrete Reasoning Over the content of Paragraphs. In this crowdsourced, adversarially-created, 96k-question benchmark, a system must resolve references in a question, perhaps to multiple input positions, and perform discrete operations over them (such as addition, counting, or sorting). These operations require a much more comprehensive understanding of the content of paragraphs than what was necessary for prior datasets. We apply state-of-the-art methods from both the reading comprehension and semantic parsing literature on this dataset and show that the best systems only achieve 32.7% F1 on our generalized accuracy metric, while expert human performance is 96.0%. We additionally present a new model that combines reading comprehension methods with simple numerical reasoning to achieve 47.0% F1.