Does Your Model Classify Entities Reasonably? Diagnosing and Mitigating Spurious Correlations in Entity Typing

Entity typing aims at predicting one or more words that describe the type(s) of a specific mention in a sentence. Due to shortcuts from surface patterns to annotated entity labels and biased training, existing entity typing models are subject to the problem of spurious correlations. To comprehensively investigate the faithfulness and reliability of entity typing methods, we first systematically define distinct kinds of model biases that are reflected mainly from spurious correlations. Particularly, we identify six types of existing model biases, including mention-context bias, lexical overlapping bias, named entity bias, pronoun bias, dependency bias, and overgeneralization bias. To mitigate model biases, we then introduce a counterfactual data augmentation method. By augmenting the original training set with their debiased counterparts, models are forced to fully comprehend sentences and discover the fundamental cues for entity typing, rather than relying on spurious correlations for shortcuts. Experimental results on the UFET dataset show our counterfactual data augmentation approach helps improve generalization of different entity typing models with consistently better performance on both the original and debiased test sets 1 . PLM Prompts Entity Typing Instances Mention-Context: Prompt I: <Mention> is a type of <mask>. S1: fire is a type of <mask>. RoBERTa: energy, heat, explosion, fire, gas S2: the war is a type of <mask>. True labels: war, battle, conflict RoBERTa: war, battle, conflict, violence, warfare T1: A teacher who survived the shooting said he would never forgive the police for taking an hour to arrive after the gunman opened fire.