mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Noisy Text Data: Achilles' Heel of popular transformer based NLP models

arXiv 2110.03353 ↗First posted 7 Oct 2021cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In the last few years, the ML community has created a number of new NLP models based on transformer architecture. These models have shown great performance for various NLP tasks on benchmark datasets, often surpassing SOTA results. Buoyed with this success, one often finds industry practitioners actively experimenting with fine-tuning these models to build NLP applications for industry use cases. However, for most datasets that are used by practitioners to build industrial NLP applications, it is hard to guarantee the presence of any noise in the data. While most transformer based NLP models have performed exceedingly well in transferring the learnings from one dataset to another, it remains unclear how these models perform when fine-tuned on noisy text. We address the open question by Kumar et al. (2020) to explore the sensitivity of popular transformer based NLP models to noise in the text data. We continue working with the noise as defined by them -- spelling mistakes & typos (which are the most commonly occurring noise). We show (via experimental results) that these models perform badly on most common NLP tasks namely text classification, textual similarity, NER, question answering, text summarization on benchmark datasets. We further show that as the noise in data increases, the performance degrades. Our findings suggest that one must be vary of the presence of noise in their datasets while fine-tuning popular transformer based NLP models.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2021.

Builds on

18 of 33 references.

References · 18

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  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. 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,801
  7. 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,772
  8. 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
  9. 2017SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity - Multilingual and Cross-lingual Focused Evaluationcited by 998
  10. 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 663
  11. 2017Synthetic and Natural Noise Both Break Neural Machine Translationcited by 304
  12. 2016Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehensioncited by 278
6 more
  1. 2019BillSum: A Corpus for Automatic Summarization of US Legislationcited by 117
  2. 2020Adv-BERT: BERT is not robust on misspellings! Generating nature adversarial samples on BERTcited by 69
  3. 2016Machine Comprehension Using Match-LSTM and Answer Pointercited by 47
  4. 2021NoiseQA: Challenge Set Evaluation for User-Centric Question Answeringcited by 25
  5. 2020Stress Test Evaluation of Transformer-based Models in Natural Language Understanding Taskscited by 17
  6. 2020To Transfer or Not to Transfer: Misclassification Attacks Against Transfer Learned Text Classifierscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.

3 papers.