MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113945743 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.semeval-1.76

TR at SemEval-2020 Task 4: Exploring the Limits of Language-model-based Common Sense Validation

2020· article· en· W3113945743 on OpenAlexaff
Don Teo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsThomson Reuters (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCommonsense knowledgeSemEvalConcretenessLanguage modelNatural language processingCommonsense reasoningTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceEmbeddingKnowledge graphLanguage understandingCommon senseDomain knowledgeCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present our submission for subtask A of the Common Sense Validation and Explanation (ComVE) shared task. We examine the ability of large-scale pre-trained language models to distinguish commonsense from non-commonsense statements. We also explore the utility of external resources that aim to supplement the world knowledge inherent in such language models, including commonsense knowledge graph embedding models, word concreteness ratings, and text-to-image generation models. We find that such resources provide insignificant gains to the performance of fine-tuned language models. We also provide a qualitative analysis of the limitations of the language model fine-tuned to this task.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207