MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984256198 · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-6115

Unlearn Dataset Bias in Natural Language Inference by Fitting the Residual

2019· article· en· W2984256198 on OpenAlexfundno aff
He He, Sheng Zha, Haohan Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsDebiasingResidualComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceInferenceMachine learningBenchmark (surveying)Natural language processingBaseline (sea)AlgorithmPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical natural language inference (NLI) models are susceptible to learning dataset bias: superficial cues that happen to associate with the label on a particular dataset, but are not useful in general, e.g., negation words indicate contradiction.As exposed by several recent challenge datasets, these models perform poorly when such association is absent, e.g., predicting that "I love dogs."contradicts "I don't love cats.".Our goal is to design learning algorithms that guard against known dataset bias.We formalize the concept of dataset bias under the framework of distribution shift and present a simple debiasing algorithm based on residual fitting, which we call DRiFt.We first learn a biased model that only uses features that are known to relate to dataset bias.Then, we train a debiased model that fits to the residual of the biased model, focusing on examples that cannot be predicted well by biased features only.We use DRiFt to train three high-performing NLI models on two benchmark datasets, SNLI and MNLI.Our debiased models achieve significant gains over baseline models on two challenge test sets, while maintaining reasonable performance on the original test sets. 1 1 Code is available at https://github.com/ hhexiy/debiased.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations165
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207