Implications of Annotation Artifacts in Edge Probing Test Datasets
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Edge probing tests are classification tasks that test for grammatical knowledge encoded in token representations coming from contextual encoders such as large language models (LLMs). Many LLM encoders have shown high performance in EP tests, leading to conjectures about their ability to encode linguistic knowledge. However, a large body of research claims that the tests necessarily do not measure the LLM's capacity to encode knowledge, but rather reflect the classifiers' ability to learn the problem. Much of this criticism stems from the fact that often the classifiers have very similar accuracy when an LLM vs a random encoder is used. Consequently, several modifications to the tests have been suggested, including information theoretic probes. We show that commonly used edge probing test datasets have various biases including memorization. When these biases are removed, the LLM encoders do show a significant difference from the random ones, even with the simple non-information theoretic probes.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Oct 2023.
Builds on
29 of 50 references.
References · 29
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
- 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,285
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
- 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
- 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 994
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
- 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
17 more
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
- 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
- 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 436
- 2019Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Datacited by 428
- 2019Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representationscited by 382
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
- 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 276
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 230
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structurecited by 204
- 2020Probing the Probing Paradigm: Does Probing Accuracy Entail Task Relevance?cited by 144
- 2018The Description Length of Deep Learning Modelscited by 71
- 2020What do Models Learn from Question Answering Datasets?cited by 45
- 2018The Importance of Being Recurrent for Modeling Hierarchical Structurecited by 42
- 2018Deep RNNs Encode Soft Hierarchical Syntaxcited by 34
- 2017Analyzing Hidden Representations in End-to-End Automatic Speech Recognition Systemscited by 31
- 2017Generalisation in Named Entity Recognition: A Quantitative Analysiscited by 25
- 2018Neural-Davidsonian Semantic Proto-role Labelingcited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.