We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which include that just 13\% of papers had (i) sufficiently low barriers to reproduction, and (ii) enough obtainable information, to be considered for reproduction, and that all but one of the experiments we selected for reproduction was discovered to have flaws that made the meaningfulness of conducting a reproduction questionable. As a result, we had to change our coordinated study design from a reproduce approach to a standardise-then-reproduce-twice approach. Our overall (negative) finding that the great majority of human evaluations in NLP is not repeatable and/or not reproducible and/or too flawed to justify reproduction, paints a dire picture, but presents an opportunity for a rethink about how to design and report human evaluations in NLP.
Automated image captioning has the potential to be a useful tool for people with vision impairments. Images taken by this user group are often noisy, which leads to incorrect and even unsafe model predictions. In this paper, we propose a quality-agnostic framework to improve the performance and robustness of image captioning models for visually impaired people. We address this problem from three angles: data, model, and evaluation. First, we show how data augmentation techniques for generating synthetic noise can address data sparsity in this domain. Second, we enhance the robustness of the model by expanding a state-of-the-art model to a dual network architecture, using the augmented data and leveraging different consistency losses. Our results demonstrate increased performance, e.g. an absolute improvement of 2.15 on CIDEr, compared to state-of-the-art image captioning networks, as well as increased robustness to noise with up to 3 points improvement on CIDEr in more noisy settings. Finally, we evaluate the prediction reliability using confidence calibration on images with different difficulty/noise levels, showing that our models perform more reliably in safety-critical situations. The improved model is part of an assisted living application, which we develop in partnership with the Royal National Institute of Blind People.
NLP datasets annotated with human judgments are rife with disagreements between the judges. This is especially true for tasks depending on subjective judgments such as sentiment analysis or offensive language detection. Particularly in these latter cases, the NLP community has come to realize that the approach of 'reconciling' these different subjective interpretations is inappropriate. Many NLP researchers have therefore concluded that rather than eliminating disagreements from annotated corpora, we should preserve them-indeed, some argue that corpora should aim to preserve all annotator judgments. But this approach to corpus creation for NLP has not yet been widely accepted. The objective of the LeWiDi series of shared tasks is to promote this approach to developing NLP models by providing a unified framework for training and evaluating with such datasets. We report on the second LeWiDi shared task, which differs from the first edition in three crucial respects: (i) it focuses entirely on NLP, instead of both NLP and computer vision tasks in its first edition; (ii) it focuses on subjective tasks, instead of covering different types of disagreements-as training with aggregated labels for subjective NLP tasks is a particularly obvious misrepresentation of the data; and (iii) for the evaluation, we concentrate on soft approaches to evaluation. This second edition of LeWiDi attracted a wide array of participants resulting in 13 shared task submission papers.
We commonly use agreement measures to assess the utility of judgements made by human annotators in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. While inter-annotator agreement is frequently used as an indication of label reliability by measuring consistency between annotators, we argue for the additional use of intra-annotator agreement to measure label stability over time. However, in a systematic review, we find that the latter is rarely reported in this field. Calculating these measures can act as important quality control and provide insights into why annotators disagree. We propose exploratory annotation experiments to investigate the relationships between these measures and perceptions of subjectivity and ambiguity in text items.
Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be able to perform new tasks based on a few demonstrations or natural language instructions. While these capabilities have led to widespread adoption, most LLMs are developed by resource-rich organizations and are frequently kept from the public. As a step towards democratizing this powerful technology, we present BLOOM, a 176B-parameter open-access language model designed and built thanks to a collaboration of hundreds of researchers. BLOOM is a decoder-only Transformer language model that was trained on the ROOTS corpus, a dataset comprising hundreds of sources in 46 natural and 13 programming languages (59 in total). We find that BLOOM achieves competitive performance on a wide variety of benchmarks, with stronger results after undergoing multitask prompted finetuning. To facilitate future research and applications using LLMs, we publicly release our models and code under the Responsible AI License.
Recent video+language datasets cover domains where the interaction is highly structured, such as instructional videos, or where the interaction is scripted, such as TV shows. Both of these properties can lead to spurious cues to be exploited by models rather than learning to ground language. In this paper, we present GrOunded footbAlL commentaries (GOAL), a novel dataset of football (or `soccer') highlights videos with transcribed live commentaries in English. As the course of a game is unpredictable, so are commentaries, which makes them a unique resource to investigate dynamic language grounding. We also provide state-of-the-art baselines for the following tasks: frame reordering, moment retrieval, live commentary retrieval and play-by-play live commentary generation. Results show that SOTA models perform reasonably well in most tasks. We discuss the implications of these results and suggest new tasks for which GOAL can be used. Our codebase is available at: https://gitlab.com/grounded-sport-convai/goal-baselines.
Conversational AI systems can engage in unsafe behaviour when handling users' medical queries that can have severe consequences and could even lead to deaths. Systems therefore need to be capable of both recognising the seriousness of medical inputs and producing responses with appropriate levels of risk. We create a corpus of human written English language medical queries and the responses of different types of systems. We label these with both crowdsourced and expert annotations. While individual crowdworkers may be unreliable at grading the seriousness of the prompts, their aggregated labels tend to agree with professional opinion to a greater extent on identifying the medical queries and recognising the risk types posed by the responses. Results of classification experiments suggest that, while these tasks can be automated, caution should be exercised, as errors can potentially be very serious.
Continual learning aims to train a model incrementally on a sequence of tasks without forgetting previous knowledge. Although continual learning has been widely studied in computer vision, its application to Vision+Language tasks is not that straightforward, as settings can be parameterized in multiple ways according to their input modalities. In this paper, we present a detailed study of how different settings affect performance for Visual Question Answering. We first propose three plausible task formulations and demonstrate their impact on the performance of continual learning algorithms. We break down several factors of task similarity, showing that performance and sensitivity to task order highly depend on the shift of the output distribution. We also investigate the potential of pretrained models and compare the robustness of transformer models with different visual embeddings. Finally, we provide an analysis interpreting model representations and their impact on forgetting. Our results highlight the importance of stabilizing visual representations in deeper layers.
Adversarial robustness evaluates the worst-case performance scenario of a machine learning model to ensure its safety and reliability. This study is the first to investigate the robustness of visually grounded dialog models towards textual attacks. These attacks represent a worst-case scenario where the input question contains a synonym which causes the previously correct model to return a wrong answer. Using this scenario, we first aim to understand how multimodal input components contribute to model robustness. Our results show that models which encode dialog history are more robust, and when launching an attack on history, model prediction becomes more uncertain. This is in contrast to prior work which finds that dialog history is negligible for model performance on this task. We also evaluate how to generate adversarial test examples which successfully fool the model but remain undetected by the user/software designer. We find that the textual, as well as the visual context are important to generate plausible worst-case scenarios.
With the proliferation of Deep Machine Learning into real-life applications, a particular property of this technology has been brought to attention: Neural Networks notoriously present low robustness and can be highly sensitive to small input perturbations. Recently, many methods for verifying networks' general properties of robustness have been proposed, but they are mostly applied in Computer Vision. In this paper we propose a Verification method for Natural Language Understanding classification based on larger regions of interest, and we discuss the challenges of such task. We observe that, although the data is almost linearly separable, the verifier does not output positive results and we explain the problems and implications.