# Implications of Annotation Artifacts in Edge Probing Test Datasets

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13856 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13856/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Oct 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Deep contextualized word representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.05365/) (2018)
- [A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1508.05326/) (2015)
- [BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.05950/) (2019)
- [What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04341/) (2019)
- [Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.01007/) (2019)
- [Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advances](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12452/) (2021)
- [Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.02324/) (2018)
- [Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03368/) (2019)
- [Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.07328/) (2017)
- [Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.12434/) (2019)
- [What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.06316/) (2019)
- [Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.08855/) (2019)
- [Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.01368/) (2016)
- [Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.08951/) (2018)
- [Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Length](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12298/) (2020)
- [Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03061/) (2020)
- [Probing the Probing Paradigm: Does Probing Accuracy Entail Task Relevance?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00719/) (2020)
- [The Description Length of Deep Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07044/) (2018)
- [What do Models Learn from Question Answering Datasets?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03490/) (2020)
- [The Importance of Being Recurrent for Modeling Hierarchical Structure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.03585/) (2018)
- [Deep RNNs Encode Soft Hierarchical Syntax](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.04218/) (2018)
- [Analyzing Hidden Representations in End-to-End Automatic Speech Recognition Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.04482/) (2017)
- [Generalisation in Named Entity Recognition: A Quantitative Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.02877/) (2017)
- [Neural-Davidsonian Semantic Proto-role Labeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07976/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Unboxing the Black Box: Mechanistic Interpretability for Algorithmic Understanding of Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.19265/) (2025)

## 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.