EMNLP Findings2020
Undersensitivity in Neural Reading Comprehension
Johannes Welbl, Pasquale Minervini, Max Bartolo, Pontus Stenetorp, Sebastian Riedel
Abstract
Current reading comprehension methods generalise well to in-distribution test sets, yet perform poorly on adversarially selected data. Prior work on adversarial inputs typically studies model oversensitivity: semantically invariant text perturbations that cause a model's prediction to change. Here we focus on the complementary problem: excessive prediction undersensitivity, where input text is meaningfully changed but the model's prediction does not, even though it should. We formulate an adversarial attack which searches among semantic variations of the question for which a model erroneously predicts the same answer, and with even higher probability. We demonstrate that models trained on both SQuAD2.0 and NewsQA are vulnerable to this attack, and then investigate data augmentation and adversarial training as defences. Both substantially decrease adversarial vulnerability, which generalises to held-out data and held-out attack spaces. Addressing undersensitivity furthermore improves model robustness on the previously introduced ADDSENT and ADDONE-SENT datasets, and models generalise better when facing train/evaluation distribution mismatch: they are less prone to overly rely on shallow predictive cues present only in the training set, and outperform a conventional model by as much as 10.9% F 1 .
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 2 top-tier papers that cite it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers2
- Contrasting Human- and Machine-Generated Word-Level Adversarial Examples for Text ClassificationMaximilian Mozes, Max Bartolo, Pontus Stenetorp, Bennett Kleinberg et al.EMNLP 2021 · 8 citations
- Balanced Adversarial Training: Balancing Tradeoffs between Fickleness and Obstinacy in NLP ModelsHannah Chen, Yangfeng Ji, David E. EvansEMNLP 2022 · 4 citations
Builds on2
- Learning The Difference That Makes A Difference With Counterfactually-Augmented DataDivyansh Kaushik, Eduard H. Hovy, Zachary Chase LiptonICLR 2020 · 625 citations
- Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP Models with CheckListMarco Túlio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, Sameer SinghACL 2020 · 51 citations
Related papers
- A Robust Adversarial Training Approach to Machine Reading ComprehensionKai Liu, Xin Liu, An Yang, Jing Liu et al.AAAI 2020 · 54 citations
- Adversarial Augmentation Policy Search for Domain and Cross-Lingual Generalization in Reading ComprehensionAdyasha Maharana, Mohit BansalEMNLP Findings 2020 · 11 citations
- The Effect of Natural Distribution Shift on Question Answering ModelsJohn Miller, Karl Krauth, Benjamin Recht, Ludwig SchmidtICML 2020 · 158 citations
- Retrieval-guided Counterfactual Generation for QABhargavi Paranjape, Matthew Lamm, Ian TenneyACL 2022 · 39 citations
- TASA: Deceiving Question Answering Models by Twin Answer Sentences AttackYu Cao, Dianqi Li, Meng Fang, Tianyi Zhou et al.EMNLP 2022 · 10 citations
