mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

GLS-CSC: A Simple but Effective Strategy to Mitigate Chinese STM Models' Over-Reliance on Superficial Clue

arXiv 2309.04162 ↗First posted 8 Sep 2023cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Pre-trained models have achieved success in Chinese Short Text Matching (STM) tasks, but they often rely on superficial clues, leading to a lack of robust predictions. To address this issue, it is crucial to analyze and mitigate the influence of superficial clues on STM models. Our study aims to investigate their over-reliance on the edit distance feature, commonly used to measure the semantic similarity of Chinese text pairs, which can be considered a superficial clue. To mitigate STM models' over-reliance on superficial clues, we propose a novel resampling training strategy called Gradually Learn Samples Containing Superficial Clue (GLS-CSC). Through comprehensive evaluations of In-Domain (I.D.), Robustness (Rob.), and Out-Of-Domain (O.O.D.) test sets, we demonstrate that GLS-CSC outperforms existing methods in terms of enhancing the robustness and generalization of Chinese STM models. Moreover, we conduct a detailed analysis of existing methods and reveal their commonality.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2023.

Builds on

29 of 38 references.

References · 29

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  4. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  5. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
  6. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
  7. 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
  8. 2018CoQA: A Conversational Question Answering Challengecited by 674
  9. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
  10. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
  11. 2019Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Datacited by 428
  12. 2019PAWS: Paraphrase Adversaries from Word Scramblingcited by 395
17 more
  1. 2018QuAC : Question Answering in Contextcited by 379
  2. 2019ERNIE: Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integrationcited by 301
  3. 2018Hypothesis Only Baselines in Natural Language Inferencecited by 291
  4. 2019Don't Take the Easy Way Out: Ensemble Based Methods for Avoiding Known Dataset Biasescited by 279
  5. 2018Stress Test Evaluation for Natural Language Inferencecited by 211
  6. 2020Adversarial Filters of Dataset Biasescited by 159
  7. 2019Towards Debiasing Fact Verification Modelscited by 143
  8. 2019End-to-End Bias Mitigation by Modelling Biases in Corporacited by 127
  9. 2016Analyzing the Behavior of Visual Question Answering Modelscited by 119
  10. 2019Unlearn Dataset Bias in Natural Language Inference by Fitting the Residualcited by 119
  11. 2020Towards Debiasing NLU Models from Unknown Biasescited by 116
  12. 2021CBLUE: A Chinese Biomedical Language Understanding Evaluation Benchmarkcited by 99
  13. 2021Identifying and Mitigating Spurious Correlations for Improving Robustness in NLP Modelscited by 76
  14. 2021Why Machine Reading Comprehension Models Learn Shortcuts?cited by 40
  15. 2019When Choosing Plausible Alternatives, Clever Hans can be Clevercited by 39
  16. 2020Counterfactually-Augmented SNLI Training Data Does Not Yield Better Generalization Than Unaugmented Datacited by 27
  17. 2022Less Learn Shortcut: Analyzing and Mitigating Learning of Spurious Feature-Label Correlationcited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2.

2 papers.