Semantics Altering Modifications for Evaluating Comprehension in Machine Reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in NLP have yielded impressive results for the task of machine reading comprehension (MRC), with approaches having been reported to achieve performance comparable to that of humans. In this paper, we investigate whether state-of-the-art MRC models are able to correctly process Semantics Altering Modifications (SAM): linguistically-motivated phenomena that alter the semantics of a sentence while preserving most of its lexical surface form. We present a method to automatically generate and align challenge sets featuring original and altered examples. We further propose a novel evaluation methodology to correctly assess the capability of MRC systems to process these examples independent of the data they were optimised on, by discounting for effects introduced by domain shift. In a large-scale empirical study, we apply the methodology in order to evaluate extractive MRC models with regard to their capability to correctly process SAM-enriched data. We comprehensively cover 12 different state-of-the-art neural architecture configurations and four training datasets and find that -- despite their well-known remarkable performance -- optimised models consistently struggle to correctly process semantically altered data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".