mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Systematicity, Compositionality and Transitivity of Deep NLP Models: a Metamorphic Testing Perspective

arXiv 2204.12316 ↗First posted 26 Apr 2022cs.CLcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Metamorphic testing has recently been used to check the safety of neural NLP models. Its main advantage is that it does not rely on a ground truth to generate test cases. However, existing studies are mostly concerned with robustness-like metamorphic relations, limiting the scope of linguistic properties they can test. We propose three new classes of metamorphic relations, which address the properties of systematicity, compositionality and transitivity. Unlike robustness, our relations are defined over multiple source inputs, thus increasing the number of test cases that we can produce by a polynomial factor. With them, we test the internal consistency of state-of-the-art NLP models, and show that they do not always behave according to their expected linguistic properties. Lastly, we introduce a novel graphical notation that efficiently summarises the inner structure of metamorphic relations.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2022.

Builds on

25 of 41 references.

References · 25

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  4. 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,935
  5. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 1,006
  6. 2019Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representationscited by 383
  7. 2018Black-box Generation of Adversarial Text Sequences to Evade Deep Learning Classifierscited by 345
  8. 2019Benchmarking Zero-shot Text Classification: Datasets, Evaluation and Entailment Approachcited by 308
  9. 2017Synthetic and Natural Noise Both Break Neural Machine Translationcited by 306
  10. 2019Compositionality decomposed: how do neural networks generalise?cited by 265
  11. 2019Certified Robustness to Adversarial Word Substitutionscited by 168
  12. 2017What do Neural Machine Translation Models Learn about Morphology?cited by 166
13 more
  1. 2018Breaking NLI Systems with Sentences that Require Simple Lexical Inferencescited by 134
  2. 2020On the Value of Out-of-Distribution Testing: An Example of Goodhart's Lawcited by 74
  3. 2019Analogies Explained: Towards Understanding Word Embeddingscited by 64
  4. 2021The paradox of the compositionality of natural language: a neural machine translation case studycited by 59
  5. 2019Linguistic generalization and compositionality in modern artificial neural networkscited by 58
  6. 2020Probing Linguistic Systematicitycited by 37
  7. 2019HELP: A Dataset for Identifying Shortcomings of Neural Models in Monotonicity Reasoningcited by 35
  8. 2017How Robust Are Character-Based Word Embeddings in Tagging and MT Against Wrod Scramlbing or Randdm Nouse?cited by 23
  9. 2020Stress Test Evaluation of Transformer-based Models in Natural Language Understanding Taskscited by 17
  10. 2021Exploring Transitivity in Neural NLI Models through Veridicalitycited by 15
  11. 2020Assessing Robustness of Text Classification through Maximal Safe Radius Computationcited by 11
  12. 2020The Unreasonable Volatility of Neural Machine Translation Modelscited by 9
  13. 2021Supporting Context Monotonicity Abstractions in Neural NLI Modelscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

5 papers.