mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Exploring Strategies for Generalizable Commonsense Reasoning with Pre-trained Models

arXiv 2109.02837 ↗First posted 7 Sep 2021cs.CLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Commonsense reasoning benchmarks have been largely solved by fine-tuning language models. The downside is that fine-tuning may cause models to overfit to task-specific data and thereby forget their knowledge gained during pre-training. Recent works only propose lightweight model updates as models may already possess useful knowledge from past experience, but a challenge remains in understanding what parts and to what extent models should be refined for a given task. In this paper, we investigate what models learn from commonsense reasoning datasets. We measure the impact of three different adaptation methods on the generalization and accuracy of models. Our experiments with two models show that fine-tuning performs best, by learning both the content and the structure of the task, but suffers from overfitting and limited generalization to novel answers. We observe that alternative adaptation methods like prefix-tuning have comparable accuracy, but generalize better to unseen answers and are more robust to adversarial splits.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2021.

Builds on

26 of 40 references.

References · 26

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  4. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  5. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  6. 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,878
  7. 2014CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluationcited by 2,027
  8. 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,922
  9. 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,793
  10. 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
  11. 2016SPICE: Semantic Propositional Image Caption Evaluationcited by 820
  12. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
14 more
  1. 2019What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language modelscited by 317
  2. 2019Abductive Commonsense Reasoningcited by 300
  3. 2020Unsupervised Commonsense Question Answering with Self-Talkcited by 161
  4. 2018How Much Reading Does Reading Comprehension Require? A Critical Investigation of Popular Benchmarkscited by 86
  5. 2020Look at the First Sentence: Position Bias in Question Answeringcited by 83
  6. 2020We Need to Talk About Random Splitscited by 70
  7. 2020What do Models Learn from Question Answering Datasets?cited by 45
  8. 2020ProtoQA: A Question Answering Dataset for Prototypical Common-Sense Reasoningcited by 45
  9. 2019Towards Generalizable Neuro-Symbolic Systems for Commonsense Question Answeringcited by 37
  10. 2020RICA: Evaluating Robust Inference Capabilities Based on Commonsense Axiomscited by 28
  11. 2019What Does My QA Model Know? Devising Controlled Probes using Expert Knowledgecited by 19
  12. 2020Undersensitivity in Neural Reading Comprehensioncited by 9
  13. 2021Identify, Align, and Integrate: Matching Knowledge Graphs to Commonsense Reasoning Taskscited by 9
  14. 2020What do we expect from Multiple-choice QA Systems?cited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 7; 2023: 4.

11 papers.