mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Investigating a Benchmark for Training-set free Evaluation of Linguistic Capabilities in Machine Reading Comprehension

arXiv 2408.05023 ↗First posted 9 Aug 2024cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Performance of NLP systems is typically evaluated by collecting a large-scale dataset by means of crowd-sourcing to train a data-driven model and evaluate it on a held-out portion of the data. This approach has been shown to suffer from spurious correlations and the lack of challenging examples that represent the diversity of natural language. Instead, we examine a framework for evaluating optimised models in training-set free setting on synthetically generated challenge sets. We find that despite the simplicity of the generation method, the data can compete with crowd-sourced datasets with regard to naturalness and lexical diversity for the purpose of evaluating the linguistic capabilities of MRC models. We conduct further experiments and show that state-of-the-art language model-based MRC systems can learn to succeed on the challenge set correctly, although, without capturing the general notion of the evaluated phenomenon.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Aug 2024.

Builds on

18 of 27 references.

References · 18

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  3. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  4. 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
  5. 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,772
  6. 2019DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphscited by 883
  7. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
  8. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
  9. 2019Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Datacited by 428
  10. 2020Retrieve, Program, Repeat: Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering via Alternate Meta-learningcited by 216
  11. 2020How Can We Accelerate Progress Towards Human-like Linguistic Generalization?cited by 114
  12. 2020Look at the First Sentence: Position Bias in Question Answeringcited by 83
6 more
  1. 2018What Makes Reading Comprehension Questions Easier?cited by 59
  2. 2019Assessing the Benchmarking Capacity of Machine Reading Comprehension Datasetscited by 46
  3. 2019Inoculation by Fine-Tuning: A Method for Analyzing Challenge Datasetscited by 41
  4. 2019Diversify Your Datasets: Analyzing Generalization via Controlled Variance in Adversarial Datasetscited by 21
  5. 2020A Framework for Evaluation of Machine Reading Comprehension Gold Standardscited by 18
  6. 2020Semantics Altering Modifications for Evaluating Comprehension in Machine Readingcited by 13

Built on by

Not cited yet.