GLS-CSC: A Simple but Effective Strategy to Mitigate Chinese STM Models' Over-Reliance on Superficial Clue
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
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
- 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
- 2018CoQA: A Conversational Question Answering Challengecited by 674
- 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
- 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
- 2019Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Datacited by 428
- 2019PAWS: Paraphrase Adversaries from Word Scramblingcited by 395
17 more
- 2018QuAC : Question Answering in Contextcited by 379
- 2019ERNIE: Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integrationcited by 301
- 2018Hypothesis Only Baselines in Natural Language Inferencecited by 291
- 2019Don't Take the Easy Way Out: Ensemble Based Methods for Avoiding Known Dataset Biasescited by 279
- 2018Stress Test Evaluation for Natural Language Inferencecited by 211
- 2020Adversarial Filters of Dataset Biasescited by 159
- 2019Towards Debiasing Fact Verification Modelscited by 143
- 2019End-to-End Bias Mitigation by Modelling Biases in Corporacited by 127
- 2016Analyzing the Behavior of Visual Question Answering Modelscited by 119
- 2019Unlearn Dataset Bias in Natural Language Inference by Fitting the Residualcited by 119
- 2020Towards Debiasing NLU Models from Unknown Biasescited by 116
- 2021CBLUE: A Chinese Biomedical Language Understanding Evaluation Benchmarkcited by 99
- 2021Identifying and Mitigating Spurious Correlations for Improving Robustness in NLP Modelscited by 76
- 2021Why Machine Reading Comprehension Models Learn Shortcuts?cited by 40
- 2019When Choosing Plausible Alternatives, Clever Hans can be Clevercited by 39
- 2020Counterfactually-Augmented SNLI Training Data Does Not Yield Better Generalization Than Unaugmented Datacited by 27
- 2022Less Learn Shortcut: Analyzing and Mitigating Learning of Spurious Feature-Label Correlationcited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2.
2 papers.