Implications of Annotation Artifacts in Edge Probing Test Datasets

October 20, 2023 ยท Entered Twilight ยท ๐Ÿ› Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning

๐Ÿ’ค TWILIGHT: Eternal Rest
Repo abandoned since publication

Repo contents: .flake8, .gitignore, .pre-commit-config.yaml, .pre-commit-hooks.yaml, README.md, eptests, pyproject.toml, requirements-py38.txt, requirements.txt

Authors Sagnik Ray Choudhury, Jushaan Kalra arXiv ID 2310.13856 Category cs.CL: Computation & Language Citations 1 Venue Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning Repository https://github.com/Josh1108/EPtest.git Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Edge probing tests are classification tasks that test for grammatical knowledge encoded in token representations coming from contextual encoders such as large language models (LLMs). Many LLM encoders have shown high performance in EP tests, leading to conjectures about their ability to encode linguistic knowledge. However, a large body of research claims that the tests necessarily do not measure the LLM's capacity to encode knowledge, but rather reflect the classifiers' ability to learn the problem. Much of this criticism stems from the fact that often the classifiers have very similar accuracy when an LLM vs a random encoder is used. Consequently, several modifications to the tests have been suggested, including information theoretic probes. We show that commonly used edge probing test datasets have various biases including memorization. When these biases are removed, the LLM encoders do show a significant difference from the random ones, even with the simple non-information theoretic probes.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Computation & Language

๐ŸŒ… ๐ŸŒ… Old Age

Attention Is All You Need

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, ... (+6 more)

cs.CL ๐Ÿ› NeurIPS ๐Ÿ“š 166.0K cites 9 years ago