Effects of Human Adversarial and Affable Samples on BERT Generalization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
BERT-based models have had strong performance on leaderboards, yet have been demonstrably worse in real-world settings requiring generalization. Limited quantities of training data is considered a key impediment to achieving generalizability in machine learning. In this paper, we examine the impact of training data quality, not quantity, on a model's generalizability. We consider two characteristics of training data: the portion of human-adversarial (h-adversarial), i.e., sample pairs with seemingly minor differences but different ground-truth labels, and human-affable (h-affable) training samples, i.e., sample pairs with minor differences but the same ground-truth label. We find that for a fixed size of training samples, as a rule of thumb, having 10-30% h-adversarial instances improves the precision, and therefore F1, by up to 20 points in the tasks of text classification and relation extraction. Increasing h-adversarials beyond this range can result in performance plateaus or even degradation. In contrast, h-affables may not contribute to a model's generalizability and may even degrade generalization performance.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2023.
Builds on
22 of 32 references.
References · 22
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
- 2019BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text miningcited by 1,935
- 2016Adversarial Machine Learning at Scalecited by 934
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
- 2019EDA: Easy Data Augmentation Techniques for Boosting Performance on Text Classification Taskscited by 800
- 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 663
- 2019Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Datacited by 428
- 2021A Survey of Data Augmentation Approaches for NLPcited by 408
10 more
- 2020Pretrained Transformers Improve Out-of-Distribution Robustnesscited by 293
- 2020On the Stability of Fine-tuning BERT: Misconceptions, Explanations, and Strong Baselinescited by 254
- 2021Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 227
- 2019SemEval-2017 Task 4: Sentiment Analysis in Twittercited by 209
- 2021Measure and Improve Robustness in NLP Models: A Surveycited by 107
- 2019BERTs of a feather do not generalize together: Large variability in generalization across models with similar test set performancecited by 89
- 2020Out of Order: How Important Is The Sequential Order of Words in a Sentence in Natural Language Understanding Tasks?cited by 72
- 2021Memorization vs. Generalization: Quantifying Data Leakage in NLP Performance Evaluationcited by 69
- 2021How Does Counterfactually Augmented Data Impact Models for Social Computing Constructs?cited by 19
- 2022Large-scale protein-protein post-translational modification extraction with distant supervision and confidence calibrated BioBERTcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
3 papers.