When Combating Hype, Proceed with Caution

In an effort to avoid reinforcing widespread hype about the capabilities of state-of-the-art language technology, researchers have developed practices in framing and citation that serve to deemphasize the field's successes. Though well-meaning, these practices often yield misleading or even false claims about the limits of our best technology. This is a problem, and it may be more serious than it looks: It limits our ability to mitigate short-term harms from NLP deployments and it limits our ability to prepare for the potentially enormous impacts of more distant future advances. This paper urges researchers to be careful about these claims and suggests some research directions and communication strategies that will make it easier to avoid or rebut them.

BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering

It is well documented that NLP models learn social biases present in the world, but little work has been done to show how these biases manifest in actual model outputs for applied tasks like question answering (QA). We introduce the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), a dataset consisting of question-sets constructed by the authors that highlight \textit{attested} social biases against people belonging to protected classes along nine different social dimensions relevant for U.S. English-speaking contexts. Our task evaluates model responses at two distinct levels: (i) given an under-informative context, test how strongly model answers reflect social biases, and (ii) given an adequately informative context, test whether the model's biases still override a correct answer choice. We find that models strongly rely on stereotypes when the context is ambiguous, meaning that the model's outputs consistently reproduce harmful biases in this setting. Though models are much more accurate when the context provides an unambiguous answer, they still rely on stereotyped information and achieve an accuracy 2.5 percentage points higher on examples where the correct answer aligns with a social bias, with this accuracy difference widening to 5 points for examples targeting gender.

Fine-Tuned Transformers Show Clusters of Similar Representations Across Layers

Despite the success of fine-tuning pretrained language encoders like BERT for downstream natural language understanding (NLU) tasks, it is still poorly understood how neural networks change after fine-tuning. In this work, we use centered kernel alignment (CKA), a method for comparing learned representations, to measure the similarity of representations in task-tuned models across layers. In experiments across twelve NLU tasks, we discover a consistent block diagonal structure in the similarity of representations within fine-tuned RoBERTa and ALBERT models, with strong similarity within clusters of earlier and later layers, but not between them. The similarity of later layer representations implies that later layers only marginally contribute to task performance, and we verify in experiments that the top few layers of fine-tuned Transformers can be discarded without hurting performance, even with no further tuning.

NOPE: A Corpus of Naturally-Occurring Presuppositions in English

Understanding language requires grasping not only the overtly stated content, but also making inferences about things that were left unsaid. These inferences include presuppositions, a phenomenon by which a listener learns about new information through reasoning about what a speaker takes as given. Presuppositions require complex understanding of the lexical and syntactic properties that trigger them as well as the broader conversational context. In this work, we introduce the Naturally-Occurring Presuppositions in English (NOPE) Corpus to investigate the context-sensitivity of 10 different types of presupposition triggers and to evaluate machine learning models' ability to predict human inferences. We find that most of the triggers we investigate exhibit moderate variability. We further find that transformer-based models draw correct inferences in simple cases involving presuppositions, but they fail to capture the minority of exceptional cases in which human judgments reveal complex interactions between context and triggers.

Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theory

Recent years have seen numerous NLP datasets introduced to evaluate the performance of fine-tuned models on natural language understanding tasks. Recent results from large pretrained models, though, show that many of these datasets are largely saturated and unlikely to be able to detect further progress. What kind of datasets are still effective at discriminating among strong models, and what kind of datasets should we expect to be able to detect future improvements? To measure this uniformly across datasets, we draw on Item Response Theory and evaluate 29 datasets using predictions from 18 pretrained Transformer models on individual test examples. We find that Quoref, HellaSwag, and MC-TACO are best suited for distinguishing among state-of-the-art models, while SNLI, MNLI, and CommitmentBank seem to be saturated for current strong models. We also observe span selection task format, which is used for QA datasets like QAMR or SQuAD2.0, is effective in differentiating between strong and weak models.

What Ingredients Make for an Effective Crowdsourcing Protocol for Difficult NLU Data Collection Tasks?

Crowdsourcing is widely used to create data for common natural language understanding tasks. Despite the importance of these datasets for measuring and refining model understanding of language, there has been little focus on the crowdsourcing methods used for collecting the datasets. In this paper, we compare the efficacy of interventions that have been proposed in prior work as ways of improving data quality. We use multiple-choice question answering as a testbed and run a randomized trial by assigning crowdworkers to write questions under one of four different data collection protocols. We find that asking workers to write explanations for their examples is an ineffective stand-alone strategy for boosting NLU example difficulty. However, we find that training crowdworkers, and then using an iterative process of collecting data, sending feedback, and qualifying workers based on expert judgments is an effective means of collecting challenging data. But using crowdsourced, instead of expert judgments, to qualify workers and send feedback does not prove to be effective. We observe that the data from the iterative protocol with expert assessments is more challenging by several measures. Notably, the human--model gap on the unanimous agreement portion of this data is, on average, twice as large as the gap for the baseline protocol data.

Does Putting a Linguist in the Loop Improve NLU Data Collection?

Many crowdsourced NLP datasets contain systematic gaps and biases that are identified only after data collection is complete. Identifying these issues from early data samples during crowdsourcing should make mitigation more efficient, especially when done iteratively. We take natural language inference as a test case and ask whether it is beneficial to put a linguist `in the loop' during data collection to dynamically identify and address gaps in the data by introducing novel constraints on the task. We directly compare three data collection protocols: (i) a baseline protocol, (ii) a linguist-in-the-loop intervention with iteratively-updated constraints on the task, and (iii) an extension of linguist-in-the-loop that provides direct interaction between linguists and crowdworkers via a chatroom. The datasets collected with linguist involvement are more reliably challenging than baseline, without loss of quality. But we see no evidence that using this data in training leads to better out-of-domain model performance, and the addition of a chat platform has no measurable effect on the resulting dataset. We suggest integrating expert analysis \textit{during} data collection so that the expert can dynamically address gaps and biases in the dataset.

What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?

Evaluation for many natural language understanding (NLU) tasks is broken: Unreliable and biased systems score so highly on standard benchmarks that there is little room for researchers who develop better systems to demonstrate their improvements. The recent trend to abandon IID benchmarks in favor of adversarially-constructed, out-of-distribution test sets ensures that current models will perform poorly, but ultimately only obscures the abilities that we want our benchmarks to measure. In this position paper, we lay out four criteria that we argue NLU benchmarks should meet. We argue most current benchmarks fail at these criteria, and that adversarial data collection does not meaningfully address the causes of these failures. Instead, restoring a healthy evaluation ecosystem will require significant progress in the design of benchmark datasets, the reliability with which they are annotated, their size, and the ways they handle social bias.

When Do You Need Billions of Words of Pretraining Data?

NLP is currently dominated by general-purpose pretrained language models like RoBERTa, which achieve strong performance on NLU tasks through pretraining on billions of words. But what exact knowledge or skills do Transformer LMs learn from large-scale pretraining that they cannot learn from less data? We adopt four probing methods---classifier probing, information-theoretic probing, unsupervised relative acceptability judgment, and fine-tuning on NLU tasks---and draw learning curves that track the growth of these different measures of linguistic ability with respect to pretraining data volume using the MiniBERTas, a group of RoBERTa models pretrained on 1M, 10M, 100M and 1B words. We find that LMs require only about 10M or 100M words to learn representations that reliably encode most syntactic and semantic features we test. A much larger quantity of data is needed in order to acquire enough commonsense knowledge and other skills required to master typical downstream NLU tasks. The results suggest that, while the ability to encode linguistic features is almost certainly necessary for language understanding, it is likely that other forms of knowledge are the major drivers of recent improvements in language understanding among large pretrained models.

Asking Crowdworkers to Write Entailment Examples: The Best of Bad Options

Large-scale natural language inference (NLI) datasets such as SNLI or MNLI have been created by asking crowdworkers to read a premise and write three new hypotheses, one for each possible semantic relationships (entailment, contradiction, and neutral). While this protocol has been used to create useful benchmark data, it remains unclear whether the writing-based annotation protocol is optimal for any purpose, since it has not been evaluated directly. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that crowdworker writing can introduce artifacts in the data. We investigate two alternative protocols which automatically create candidate (premise, hypothesis) pairs for annotators to label. Using these protocols and a writing-based baseline, we collect several new English NLI datasets of over 3k examples each, each using a fixed amount of annotator time, but a varying number of examples to fit that time budget. Our experiments on NLI and transfer learning show negative results: None of the alternative protocols outperforms the baseline in evaluations of generalization within NLI or on transfer to outside target tasks. We conclude that crowdworker writing still the best known option for entailment data, highlighting the need for further data collection work to focus on improving writing-based annotation processes.